$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[Army Guy]

want them to climb into a F-35...one of the 65 that we can afford. I want you to some day realize that there isn't money for everything. 65 F-35As is an increase in capacity over 80 F/A-18As. They can fly twice and far and carry more weapons. They can barely be seen on radar. The only drawback is that they're slightly slower. We'll actually be able to cover more ground than current with better aircraft. WE'll simply have 80% of the current aircraft inventory for each of the jobs that we do.

I'm fully aware of the problem, That all being said, is governments and the people of Canada have to come to the conclusion that while making cuts to the military is an easy solution to shortfalls, there is consqunences in doing so...a pay now or pay much more later....and we can't just simple say thats all we can afford for now....which is hard to swallow when this government and past governments have pissed away much more, for much much less...

[Smallc]

No one is making cuts to the military.

[Smallc]

By the way, your own link states Canada's aerospace sector is 5th, not fourth. If you wanna heckle people over minor spelling errors, try not to make factual mistakes in the same post.

The newer link, on top, states fourth.

[GostHacked]

Such parts are readily available from AMARC (Davis Monthan AFB) near Tucson, Arizona.

Why has that not been an option as of this time? I am sure Canada can purchase the parts for real cheap, it would make sense to kind of upgrade/fix the fleet while phasing in the F-35.

http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/dm06/page1.html

True. But like I said, we can't be flying these things forever. Better multi-role fighters already exist. Our air force needs a serious upgrade. The F35 is a great plane to be using.

The Grippen is a great plane I admit, and I love what SAAB has been doing since the Draken. But the push towards STOL and VTOL is very present. The advantages of a VTOL aircraft over conventionalcraft is worth the money. You don't need to spend the money maintaining expensive airports and runways. You can operate on a cliff on a mountain if you wanted to.

We can put these planes in places we never considered before. Because well, it does not need a runway.

The Falklands war is a great example of this. The Harrier with VTOL capabilities was a key factor in taking over the islands. What the Argentinians did to the airstrips on the islands did not make much of a difference at all.

Oh those things don't need runways?? FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

This would be a serious upgrade for Canada. VTOL, extremely low radar signature (due to design and coating and internal weapon stores), affordable (about as affordable as they can be). There really is no reason to not have these things in our fleet.

What would be optimum is to get some now, and phase out the F-18s or retool them for another role. We should not just ditch them altogether I guess because they are still useful. At least put them into other roles suited for them.

[nicky10013]

The deal in the space of only a few days has nearly doubled. Was 9 billion, now 16.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-bending-to-us-on-sole-source-fighter-purchase-documents-reveal/article1600070/?cmpid=rss1

[M.Dancer]

The deal in the space of only a few days has nearly doubled. Was 9 billion, now 16.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-bending-to-us-on-sole-source-fighter-purchase-documents-reveal/article1600070/?cmpid=rss1

Of course 20 years of maintenence adds up....buy a 20,000 dolar car and add 20 years of maintenence to the cost...

[Moonbox]

the Gripen can be customized how ever a country likes more than the F-35!

We can use our own avionics's if we want F-35 not so!!.

No the Gripen cannot be upgraded 'however a country likes'. It can be customized to some extent, but it can't be customized to avoid radar detection like the F-35, nor can it be customized to perform 4 times better than Canada's existing fighter fleet.

The Gripen isn't even an option for us to 'upgrade' to. It would be like upgrading from a 2007 Toyota Corolla to a 2010 Honda Civic. It would be a pointless and expensive marginal upgrade that would leave us in the same situation as we're in now within the next 10-15 years.

[nicky10013]

Of course 20 years of maintenence adds up....buy a 20,000 dolar car and add 20 years of maintenence to the cost...

At nearly 140 million a plane, you'd think those costs would be built into the 9 billion. In fact, a lot of people at that massive price said, "what do you expect with maintenance contracts etc." Nope. Not only that, the contract isn't even being tendered. Why? Because apparently opening up the bid process would "upset allies." You know, for a guy who apparently is such a "good leader," Harper sure waits to follow what other countries are going to do. Pretty much all our economic and environmental policies are clones of the states; we're buying 65 warplanes so we don't upset NATO; we're building a fake lake so we don't upset reporters. Seems to me Canadians are getting screwed because abroad Harper doesn't have a set (probably because he knows he can't bully other world leaders).

[M.Dancer]

At nearly 140 million a plane, you'd think those costs would be built into the 9 billion.

No I wouldn't think that. Nor would I think that the 20K sticker price for a suzuki covers regular maintenence, snow tires or gas..

[GostHacked]

At nearly 140 million a plane, you'd think those costs would be built into the 9 billion.

Would you like to purchase the extended no hassles guaranteed replacement plan should said item break during normal use?

[Bonam]

Not only that, the contract isn't even being tendered. Why? Because apparently opening up the bid process would "upset alnlies."

Are you even trying to pay attention? Only Lockheed-Martin produces the F-35. No other company does. So there's nothing to tender.

[M.Dancer]

Are you even trying to pay attention? Only Lockheed-Martin produces the F-35. No other company does. So there's nothing to tender.

What is meant is that the competion to replace the CF18 has not been tendered...no other planes has been asked to copmpete...mind you, when we got into the devopment of the jet, that was pretty mnuch an indictation we along with all the other nations that participated in the R&D would be buying what they invested in.

Now if a tender was tabled now...I mean right now....we could expect delivery something in the year 30...

[Remiel]

Talk about a stunning failure of negotiations and sense... You know, I wonder how much everyone else is paying per plane.

[dre]

Talk about a stunning failure of negotiations and sense... You know, I wonder how much everyone else is paying per plane.

My guess is, that we will eventually find out we grossly overpaid. Defense spending is the biggest scam of all time.

[Moonbox]

What is meant is that the competion to replace the CF18 has not been tendered...no other planes has been asked to copmpete.

There aren't that many alternative options. The Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale etc are all marginal upgrades and wouldn't provide nearly the same effectiveness nor longevity.

The F-35 is the only plane out there that's going to provide a meaningful upgrade that we can use for the next 30+ years.

[Bonam]

The F-35 is the only plane out there that's going to provide a meaningful upgrade that we can use for the next 30+ years.

Yeah the only thing comparable/better is the F-22 Raptor but those are even more expensive. Even the US only has ~150 of them. The F-35 is supposed to have much simplified logistic support requirements, that was one of the major goals and criteria behind its development.

[Moonbox]

Yeah the only thing comparable/better is the F-22 Raptor but those are even more expensive. Even the US only has ~150 of them. The F-35 is supposed to have much simplified logistic support requirements, that was one of the major goals and criteria behind its development.

The F-22 was too good to be feasible. It was too expensive, too hard to maintain and way ahead of its time.

[Bonam]

The F-22 was too good to be feasible.

I'd put it differently. The F-22 was too expensive given the lack of necessity for such a high performance aircraft. It was built and it flew, hence it was "feasible", it just wasn't necessary enough given its cost. If the US was involved in or anticipated a war with a nation capable of fielding significant numbers of advanced fighters of their own, the F-22s would be being pumped out by the thousands.

Interestingly, Russia seems to be building their own fighter that will have performance comparable to the F-22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

And unlike the US, they won't restrict its export. In the not too distant future, the US and its allies may be faced with using their F-35s against middle-eastern powers armed with such aircraft, in which case the F-22 may make a comeback, or perhaps a sixth generation fighter will be nearing production by then.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And unlike the US, they won't restrict its export. In the not too distant future, the US and its allies may be faced with using their F-35s against middle-eastern powers armed with such aircraft, in which case the F-22 may make a comeback, or perhaps a sixth generation fighter will be nearing production by then.

The F-22 will be fine for now....all the US has to do is keep the tooling and supply chain viable with low rate production. Besides, it more than just about the machines. Training and experience count...just ask Syria!

[Bonam]

The F-22 will be fine for now....all the US has to do is keep the tooling and supply chain viable with low rate production.

Yes, that is all it has to do. Last I heard, however, procurement of additional F-22s has been frozen. Personally I think the US should open up the F-22s for export to certain allied countries, that would be an easy solution to keep the expertise and supply chain in place without spending US money buying these planes if they don't think they need them. I know Israel has expressed interest in purchasing F-22s, as has Japan.

Besides, it more than just about the machines. Training and experience count...just ask Syria!

True that.

[dre]

I'd put it differently. The F-22 was too expensive given the lack of necessity for such a high performance aircraft. It was built and it flew, hence it was "feasible", it just wasn't necessary enough given its cost. If the US was involved in or anticipated a war with a nation capable of fielding significant numbers of advanced fighters of their own, the F-22s would be being pumped out by the thousands.

Interestingly, Russia seems to be building their own fighter that will have performance comparable to the F-22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

And unlike the US, they won't restrict its export. In the not too distant future, the US and its allies may be faced with using their F-35s against middle-eastern powers armed with such aircraft, in which case the F-22 may make a comeback, or perhaps a sixth generation fighter will be nearing production by then.

We could have bought the T-50 for probably 30-50 million dollars less per plane, saved billions of dollars and had comparable capabilities. It has IRST systems as well, and should be able to detect any stealth aircraft from as far as 20 or 30 kilometers away.

Edited June 12, 2010 by dre

[Remiel]

In the not too distant future, the US and its allies may be faced with using their F-35s against middle-eastern powers armed with such aircraft, in which case the F-22 may make a comeback, or perhaps a sixth generation fighter will be nearing production by then.

Besides the experience thing, I seriously doubt that any Middle Eastern country could field enough of them to make them effective against the U.S. The U.S. would be able to reasonable facsimile of a swarm of locusts with the number of F-35s they will have, let alone their F-22s.

[Bonam]

We could have bought the T-50 for probably 30-50 million dollars less per plane, saved billions of dollars and had comparable capabilities.

Who knows when/if the T-50 will actually reach mass production? The Joint Strike Fighter program is much further advanced. Besides, Canada benefits economically from F-35 production as Canadian industry is involved to some extent, which is not the case with Russian aircraft. Also I don't know if we'd save nearly as much as you claim, those planes are estimated to cost over $100 mil each currently, and these programs almost always go over budget, plus we'd no doubt be charged a markup beyond that. Of course maintenance and operation costs would be on top of that, just as they are with the F35s.

[Bonam]

Besides the experience thing, I seriously doubt that any Middle Eastern country could field enough of them to make them effective against the U.S. The U.S. would be able to reasonable facsimile of a swarm of locusts with the number of F-35s they will have, let alone their F-22s.

You are quite correct that given the current economic reality no middle-eastern nation could possibly afford to get enough of those (or any other aircraft) to seriously oppose the US. But economic reality can change over the next few decades, and who knows what Russia or China might be willing to finance if they saw an opportunity to advance their regional interests in the area at the expense of the US.

[dre]

Who knows when/if the T-50 will actually reach mass production? The Joint Strike Fighter program is much further advanced. Besides, Canada benefits economically from F-35 production as Canadian industry is involved to some extent, which is not the case with Russian aircraft. Also I don't know if we'd save nearly as much as you claim, those planes are estimated to cost over $100 mil each currently, and these programs almost always go over budget, plus we'd no doubt be charged a markup beyond that. Of course maintenance and operation costs would be on top of that, just as they are with the F35s.

They are supposed to be available commercially between 2015 and 2020. Canada would have benefited from F35 contracts whether we bought the plane or not.

Your right its tough to say how much we would have saved, but my guess is it would have been a pretty penny. The T-50 is being made in India where manufacturing costs are much lower than in the US.

The point is... we wont know because we never got a bid for the T-50. I think we definately should have.

In any case, Id like to think that they considered all the options out there, and did a cost/benefit analysis on all of them to make sure we got the best bang for our buck, but I highly doubt we did. My guess is that if we had published a list of the capabilities we are likely to need that there would have been quite a few planes that could have done the job, and for less money.