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

[PIK]

This is the way to go, this soursing out has become a real problem, I don't think people realize how much money is wasted ,when it takes years to buy something. It is a all weather plane and that is what we need and of course jobs.

[DogOnPorch]

All the instructions would be in Russian...not to mention the cockpit instruments and vocal warnings.

Pilot: What's the backwards 'R' thingy mean again???

Ground: Checking on Babelfish now...stand by.

Edited July 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Alta4ever]

The MIG 29 is as old as the F-18 and the Poles are presently considering modernizing them in order to get another 10 or 15 years out of them, if they can get Mikoyan to come up with a program. Just what we need. The Typhoon has had massive cost overruns, some saying the eventual unit cost to the RAF could be the same as the F-22. Link

You to realize that the opposition is purely political, considering not much was said by these same wanna be experts when the liberal government made the first investment into the f-35.

[bush_cheney2004]

The MIG 29 is as old as the F-18 and the Poles are presently considering modernizing them in order to get another 10 or 15 years out of them, if they can get Mikoyan to come up with a program. Just what we need.

Poland has already taken delivery of F-16 C/D Block 52 with options for more. Canada only has one front line type.

[DogOnPorch]

Pilot: It keeps saying 'Слишком низкая тяга вверх.'...what the Hell is that??

[bush_cheney2004]

All the instructions would be in Russian...not to mention the cockpit instruments and vocal warnings.

That's OK...remember Clint Eastwood in Firefox (1982)?

[Wilber]

You to realize that the opposition is purely political, considering not much was said by these same wanna be experts when the liberal government made the first investment into the f-35.

Of course, the only non US competitors are the Typhoon which could easily be more expensive than the F-35 and has no stealth capability, and the T50 which just made its first flight in January and already has a projected unit cost of 100M US, which will be as big a fiction as any other estimate made for these things.

Much is being made about this being a no bid contract. To have bidders, you need companies that have something realistic to bid with. You sure aren't going to find people falling over themselves to design you a cutting edge fighter when you only want to buy 65 of the things.

[nicky10013]

Of course, the only non US competitors are the Typhoon which could easily be more expensive than the F-35 and has no stealth capability, and the T50 which just made its first flight in January and already has a projected unit cost of 100M US, which will be as big a fiction as any other estimate made for these things.

Much is being made about this being a no bid contract. To have bidders, you need companies that have something realistic to bid with. You sure aren't going to find people falling over themselves to design you a cutting edge fighter when you only want to buy 65 of the things.

Is it just me, or am I the only person who can do math? 65 planes at 9 billion works out to 140 million per plane. Figure in the maintanence costs and it goes up to just under 250 million per plane.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is it just me, or am I the only person who can do math? 65 planes at 9 billion works out to 140 million per plane. Figure in the maintanence costs and it goes up to just under 250 million per plane.

...but that includes spares, tooling, support, and cool F-35 bumper stickers for your car.

[Alta4ever]

Is it just me, or am I the only person who can do math? 65 planes at 9 billion works out to 140 million per plane. Figure in the maintanence costs and it goes up to just under 250 million per plane.

The math was done much earlier in the thread.

[Wilber]

Is it just me, or am I the only person who can do math? 65 planes at 9 billion works out to 140 million per plane. Figure in the maintenance costs and it goes up to just under 250 million per plane.

Do you really think those other aircraft won't need spares, tools, or factory support which will include among other things, the training of maintenance and support personnel? These things aren't cheap to maintain. Engine overhaul costs alone will run into the hundreds of millions over the life of the aircraft.

[nicky10013]

The math was done much earlier in the thread.

Well, when people talk about the Eurofighter Typhoon at approaching 100 million per plane, I thought it was necessary to remind that hey, the F-35 is far and away more expensive.

Good article from Michael Byers: Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/836959--16-billion-for-the-wrong-planes

[Alta4ever]

Well, when people talk about the Eurofighter Typhoon at approaching 100 million per plane, I thought it was necessary to remind that hey, the F-35 is far and away more expensive.

Good article from Michael Byers: Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/836959--16-billion-for-the-wrong-planes

pffft UBC, printed by the star no less. I'm sure that it a balanced piece of RED STAR GARBAGE.

[Alta4ever]

And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane, the F-35 has a relatively short range.

I guess this intellectual heavy weight idiot doesn't realize that some of our forward airbases in the north have very short runways and short take off and landing is a requirement, now as it was when the cf-18 requirements were drawn up.

An honest set of operational requirements would enable tenders for Boeing's new FA-18 Super Hornet,

The super hornet is not new and is built on an extended 1970's airframe.

The fact of the matter is, Friday's F-35 announcement has more to do with supporting U.S. companies than Canadian ones.

One only needs to take drive through halifax to see that lougheed martin builds aircraft components in Canada.

Back in 2006, the Harper government spent $8.3 billion on four C-17 Globemaster and 17 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. The contracts were not tendered, making the planes much more expensive than they would otherwise be.

Was this author not just complaining about not buying superhornets from boeing?

Typical red star garbage.

Considering the Cost of the superhornet sits at about 100 million per plane before maintenance contracts and the like we get cutting edge for about 40 million more, meaning the need for upgrades will be further down the road.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

pffft UBC, printed by the star no less. I'm sure that it a balanced piece of RED STAR GARBAGE.

Calling it the Red Star is garbage in itself even though it is left leanign. UBC though, quite a conservative school.

Even then, I find it quite hilarious that you won't read an article with bias because it doesn't fit your own bias. How incredibly hypocritical.

[nicky10013]

double post.

Edited July 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

I guess this intellectual heavy weight idiot doesn't realize that some of our forward airbases in the north have very short runways and short take off and landing is a requirement, now as it was when the cf-18 requirements were drawn up.

Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure the CF-18 requires the same size runway as everything else.

The super hornet is not new and is built on an extended 1970's airframe.

Don't disagree

One only needs to take drive through halifax to see that lougheed martin builds aircraft components in Canada.

Which is why the government invested in the program. Not to buy airplanes, but to get contracts for Canadian firms.

Was this author not just complaining about not buying superhornets from boeing?

Where does it say that IF they were purchased it wouldn't be tendered?

Edited July 26, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure the CF-18 requires the same size runway as everything else.

UHHH considering it is designed for carrier operations its landing and take of distances are shorter, it has a much more heavy duty landing gear designed for harder landings makes it a little different then a standard airforce fighter.

[Wilber]

Well, when people talk about the Eurofighter Typhoon at approaching 100 million per plane, I thought it was necessary to remind that hey, the F-35 is far and away more expensive.

Good article from Michael Byers: Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/836959--16-billion-for-the-wrong-planes

The link I provided estimates a unit cost to the RAF of between 137M CAD and 221M CAD at todays exchange rate, for the Typhoon depending on whether they buy 144 or 232 of the aircraft. I hate to think what our cost would be for only 65. You don't get discounts for buying less.

Even so, I would rather see Canada buy the Typhoon than the F-18E. Because we only buy new fighters every 30 years or so, it is important to buy as up to date machines as we can find. If our F-35's start to be delivered in 2016 as planned, it will be 34 years since the CF-18's went into service. Older than most of the guys who are flying them.

[nicky10013]

UHHH considering it is designed for carrier operations its landing and take of distances are shorter, it has a much more heavy duty landing gear designed for harder landings makes it a little different then a standard airforce fighter.

The only way it can take off from such short distances on carriers is to use a steam catapult. The only way it can land in such short distances is to use an arrester cable. Does Canada use either of the two? Nope.

[Alta4ever]

The only way it can take off from such short distances on carriers is to use a steam catapult. The only way it can land in such short distances is to use an arrester cable. Does Canada use either of the two? Nope.

Interesting an extended landing hook, you might find it interesting to see what is used at forward operating bases to slow these aircraft down.

Have you ever met or talked to a cf-18 driver?

Edited July 26, 2010 by Alta4ever

[bush_cheney2004]

The only way it can take off from such short distances on carriers is to use a steam catapult. The only way it can land in such short distances is to use an arrester cable. Does Canada use either of the two? Nope.

Then why do CF-188s have tail hooks? Why are arrester cables used at Inuvik?

[nicky10013]

The link I provided estimates a unit cost to the RAF of between 137M CAD and 221M CAD at todays exchange rate, for the Typhoon depending on whether they buy 144 or 232 of the aircraft. I hate to think what our cost would be for only 65. You don't get discounts for buying less.

Even so, I would rather see Canada buy the Typhoon than the F-18E. Because we only buy new fighters every 30 years or so, it is important to buy as up to date machines as we can find. If our F-35's start to be delivered in 2016 as planned, it will be 34 years since the CF-18's went into service. Older than most of the guys who are flying them.

I agree. The F-18E is an old technology. I also agree that the Typhoon could be expensive. The entire point here, though, is that we'll never know the cost/benefit analysis of the two planes because we never saw the contract tendered.

[Alta4ever]

I agree. The F-18E is an old technology. I also agree that the Typhoon could be expensive. The entire point here, though, is that we'll never know the cost/benefit analysis of the two planes because we never saw the contract tendered.

Do you really think that we will move from a non carrier varient of aircraft. Our infrastructure to support fighter operations better suits an aircraft with a much more robust landing gear. In other words our pilots must slam these things down on our short runways.

[nicky10013]

Then why do CF-188s have tail hooks? Why are arrester cables used at Inuvik?

Ice?