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

[Moonbox]

Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that. Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.

Is this another argument about fighters being obsolete because of nuclear weapons? If so you're missing the point entirely.

[GostHacked]

There are numerous fighter manufacturers in the US. The US military makes them compete for the best design. Once the best design is determined and you start production, that's the end of the competition. We're not talking about bartering for goats or anything here. We're talking about aircraft that take 10+ years to develop and will be in service for 30+ years.

Quite true. It was only in the mid-late 80s when the F-22 prorotype and the F-23 prototypes were going head to head for the next gen fighter. It takes a couple decades to get a fighter into full production. For the F-22, it was a 25 year process.

Thats just it, these planes are designed to replace another plane from the '60s.

If you said that you were replacing your buggy and whip from the 60's with another buggy and whip, I'd think it might be a concern. Or better yet, the military is upgrading their 9.6 kilobit modems, with 33.6 kilobit modems! Yay!

It's still an upgrade and over 3x better than your 9.6. But in terms of tech, the F-35 is light years ahead of the CF-18 and most other aircraft currently in service.

Stealth is of course - only truely effective 'before' war starts. Tomahawks and B2 bombers are not designed for use 'during' war (because how can you be stealthy once the enemy knows you are firing on them?) unless you are testing them. And the Gulf is just a test war for the real deal - nuke equipped Tomahawks on pre-emptive strike.

See how sneaky those B-2 bombers were when Iraq was invaded... twice? Oh that's right, you didn't.

Most fighter jets max out at around Mach 2.5

But the payload they carry can go much much faster.

[justme]

I'm not reading through 24 pages to see if this has already been said or not, but:

The federal government continued its military spending campaign on Thursday with the announcement of an $8.3-billion project to beef up the Canadian Forces aircraft fleet.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced plans at CFB Trenton in Ontario to acquire 17 regular tactical-lift planes and four strategic-lift aircraft for the Canadian Forces.

The cost of the aircraft was pegged at $5 billion. O'Connor said an additional $3.3 billion will be spent over the next 20 years in service and support for the aircraft.

...

Of the $4.7 billion announced Wednesday for a new helicopter program, $2 billion will cover the purchase of the helicopters and the rest will go toward their maintenance for about 20 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/29/military-plane-promise.html

I think you'll find that the total price tag for the F-35s also includes maintenance and that the cost of the F-35s is actually much lower.

My concern is whether or not 65 is enough. I mean, that's about half the number of F-18s that Canada bought and you can fit all of them on one US aircraft carrier. This seems to be a trend as they also cut down the number of F-18s when they upgraded them. Meanwhile, we have the second largest land mass in the world to cover and we're part of both NORAD and NATO.

[Smallc]

65 F-35s can cover more ground than the current 80 F-18s...and we just can't afford any more than that at those kinds of prices (the contract, as far as i can tell, will not include maintenance for $9B).

[Remiel]

I think maintenance is expected to be another $16 billion.

[Smallc]

I think maintenance is expected to be another $16 billion.

I don't read it that way. I think that maintenance is expected to be $7B over 20 years.

[ZenOps]

Thats what I heard too, $9 billion for the planes upfront $7 billion for the maintenance contract, $16 Billion total.

Relatively speaking, thats a pretty good price for maintenance. Some fighter planes are double the cost of the actual hardware. Canada does not have the expertise or the blueprints to the F-35, so that $7 billion definitely all goes to the US.

Helicopters are triple cost in maintenance.

In China though - They would never build it to start with if the maintenance was more than 15% of the initial cost. They would just build a new one (IE: By the time you need to repair your Iphone 3G, you wouldn't want to because you would be able to get the Iphone4 for less)

Edited June 21, 2010 by ZenOps

[Jerry J. Fortin]

According to the contracts(s) there is a hell of a lot of that money staying right here in Canada. On the other hand, if could build the damned things here we would save a lot more money. Ahhhh for want of an Arrow...

[Moonbox]

According to the contracts(s) there is a hell of a lot of that money staying right here in Canada. On the other hand, if could build the damned things here we would save a lot more money. Ahhhh for want of an Arrow...

The Arrow...right...obsolete before completion. Let's not get into that again.

[PIK]

It took over 20 years to get the OK for the frigates, I wonder how much that cost taking that long to do a deal. I beginning to think ,that maybe this is the way to go, get it done and maybe cheaper in the long run??

[segnosaur]

Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that.

Also may be more capable of traveling faster/further (useful if you need to intercept something in a hurry), capable of carrying more weight (useful if you need to carry larger bomb loads, etc.)

Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.

They don't? Then why was the U.S. able to overthrow the Taliban largely by using air-power (directed by a small number of ground troops)?

Not that I expect Canadian fighters to ever engage in dog fights, but the idea shouldn't be discounted totally.

...buying some symbolic fighters to use in the last war where they are probably valid (Afghanistan) as slightly useable weapons seems a little misguided.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that Afghanistan is the last war in which they're "probably valid"? Are you assuming that there will never be any more wars, ever again?

[Moonbox]

Not that I expect Canadian fighters to ever engage in dog fights, but the idea shouldn't be discounted totally.

US fighters have engaged in dog fights within my lifetime. I wouldn't say it's out of the question at all.

Regardless, a lot of the capabilities of a good dogfighter are the the same capabilities required to evade and throw off AA missiles.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Moonbox

[Wilber]

It took over 20 years to get the OK for the frigates, I wonder how much that cost taking that long to do a deal. I beginning to think ,that maybe this is the way to go, get it done and maybe cheaper in the long run??

Still waiting for their helicopters.

[Wilber]

Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that. Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.

Now you can argue that if you want to enter the knight joust competition, you have to have and spend money on a full suit of armor and a really long lance. And if thats the case - then the airplanes are important for symbolic superiority.

But one can just as easily put the money toward a symbolic sports team, like a soccer team and have them fight for symbolic superiority on the sports field. Even Hitler put money into sports as much as military.

And this govt seems to be all about "superiority". Owning the podium was enough already - buying some symbolic fighters to use in the last war where they are probably valid (Afghanistan) as slightly useable weapons seems a little misguided.

Just ask the guys who don't have air superiority how important it is. They have a tendancy to die in far greater numbers.

[Army Guy]

Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that. Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.

I don't think you fully understand what role aircraft play on the modern battlefield, keeping in mind that warfare is a huge book, with many chapters in it....Afghan or insurgent warfare is but one chapter...each piece of equipment used in these chapters have many different roles to play, IE in Afghan aircraft are more a support wpn sys....where as aircraft in High intense warfare aircraft form it's own wpns system and have their own plane of existance in which they fight...

There are well over 15,000 combat aircraft world wide. And odds that nobody is going to use them anytime soon is just unrealistic, in fact they have played a major role in every conflict since their inception...North Korea is a world flash piont, and could once again drag in other large nations such as china, with one spark and could you say with certainity that Canada would not put another force into the mix....With well over 120 of these conflicts already raging world wide, and many more flash pionts....we can not count out mordern aircraft just yet....

Infact most modern countries with large standing armies are pumping trillions of dollars into research into the ultamate fighter aircraft knowing and understanding that they still have a major role to play in any future conflict.

History has shown time upon time again that with out a modern fighter that there will be no sucessful ground campaign. with out dominating the skys your ground troops will take huge losses....

[ZenOps]

I wonder what the military brass in Canada would say if Ignatieff was in power and tried to force a buy of 50 or so Sukhoi 37's.

They are about $150 million a apiece, about the same.

Edited June 23, 2010 by ZenOps

[M.Dancer]

I wonder what the military brass in Canada would say if Ignatieff was in power and tried to force a buy of 50 or so Sukhoi 37's.

They are about $150 million a apiece, about the same.

They would probably say, given the money we have invested into the F35 project, why would we want a fighter from an nation that has proven their equipment inferior to US craft and is not equiped to work in tandomn with our allies.

[Moonbox]

They would probably say, given the money we have invested into the F35 project, why would we want a fighter from an nation that has proven their equipment inferior to US craft and is not equiped to work in tandomn with our allies.

Bingo. Russia has been behind in technology for decades now and we don't have the same common interests as we do with the US. Add to that the fact that we share a continent with our neighbours ot the south and you have a pretty compelling set of reasons why we don't buy equipment from the Ruskies.

[dre]

Bingo. Russia has been behind in technology for decades now and we don't have the same common interests as we do with the US. Add to that the fact that we share a continent with our neighbours ot the south and you have a pretty compelling set of reasons why we don't buy equipment from the Ruskies.

From what I can tell the T-50 will be as good or better than the F35, and might be cheaper. I guess it depends how fast we need this things... the T-50 wont be available until at least 2015.

I have no problem buying stuff from Russia or anywhere else though... wherever the best deals are. And any time we are looking at a purchase this big at least a couple of options should be explored.

[M.Dancer]

Russian soldier have recently started wearing socks instead of wrapping puttees round thier feet....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7939694.stm

[dre]

Russian soldier have recently started wearing socks instead of wrapping puttees round thier feet....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7939694.stm

Doesnt matter what you think, Russia makes good airframes and always has. The T-50 will probably be a better plane than the F35 and somewhat comparable to the Raptor.

In general Russia builds better airframes, and the US builds better avionics. Thats usually the tradeoff... that and the is still ahead in stealth technology.

Id buy whichever one is the best deal.

[Moonbox]

From what I can tell the T-50 will be as good or better than the F35, and might be cheaper. I guess it depends how fast we need this things... the T-50 wont be available until at least 2015.

From "what you can tell" is pretty limited technical expertise. Let's talk about what we 'know' though. First, the Ruskies/Indians are significantly behind in stealth, avionics and electronics/ECM technology. Second, they are significantly behind in terms of industrial and economical capacity and third, they're barely in the prototype stage. Any full production estimates pegging the plane before 2020 is pretty optimistic.

I have no problem buying stuff from Russia or anywhere else though... wherever the best deals are. And any time we are looking at a purchase this big at least a couple of options should be explored.

Why would we trust what has generally been our continent's biggest strategic rival/enemy to provide us with weapons? Would it not make sense to trust our allies and neighbours (who've been technologically pre-eminent for decades) to provide us with the same equipment they've been using? I think so.

[M.Dancer]

Doesnt matter what you think, Russia makes good airframes and always has. The T-50 will probably be a better plane than the F35 and somewhat comparable to the Raptor.

In general Russia builds better airframes, and the US builds better avionics. Thats usually the tradeoff... that and the is still ahead in stealth technology.

Id buy whichever one is the best deal.

Yes and the fact that russian planes are consistantly shot down by US planes is just an anomoly...

[dre]

Yes and the fact that russian planes are consistantly shot down by US planes is just an anomoly...

Youve seen Top Gun too many times.

Heres a paper on Russian fighter technology.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html

Comparing Basic Technologies

Basic technologies determine what kind of airframes, propulsion, systems and weapons can be employed by either side in a conflict. The side with a significant lead in basic technology will prevail, all else being equal, due to the performance and capability gains that lead confers.

Perhaps the most foolish of the popular misconceptions of Russian basic technology is that which assumes that the US and EU maintain the technological lead of 1-2 decades held at the end of the Cold War. Alas, nearly two decades later, in a globalised, digitised and networked world, the US retains a decisive lead only in top end stealth technologies, and some aspects of networking and highly integrated systems software. The Russians have closed the gap in most other areas, but importantly, have mastered the difficult embedded software technology so critical for radar and electronic warfare systems, as well as sensor fusion, networking and engine and flight controls. The Russians are working very hard at closing the remaing gap, with the planned PAK-FA fighter to be properly shaped for low observable and very low observable stealth capability.

[dre]

From "what you can tell" is pretty limited technical expertise. Let's talk about what we 'know' though. First, the Ruskies/Indians are significantly behind in stealth, avionics and electronics/ECM technology. Second, they are significantly behind in terms of industrial and economical capacity and third, they're barely in the prototype stage. Any full production estimates pegging the plane before 2020 is pretty optimistic.

Why would we trust what has generally been our continent's biggest strategic rival/enemy to provide us with weapons? Would it not make sense to trust our allies and neighbours (who've been technologically pre-eminent for decades) to provide us with the same equipment they've been using? I think so.

Why would we trust what has generally been our continent's biggest strategic rival/enemy to provide us with weapons? Would it not make sense to trust our allies and neighbours (who've been technologically pre-eminent for decades) to provide us with the same equipment they've been using? I think so.

The problem is that the US is the most expensive place on the planet to produce and manafucture ANYTHING. Even Americans dont buy much US made stuff anymore for that reason.