Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[GWiz]

So you'd rather have an aircraft with technology that will be 15-20 years old by the time we receive our first one? Even if we bought these they will have to be replaced 15-20 years before an F-35 would. Pay less today to pay more later doesn't make any sense.

News flash "genious" the "technology" in BOTH airframes are IDENTICAL, and will ALWAYS be the BEST available until the 6th Gen. (unmanned) airframes take over 10-15 years from NOW... THEN they will be INCORPORATED in the "air combat pacs" which will include the F-18e/f/G SUPER HORNETS...

[GWiz]

You don't know what you're talking about. The Super Hornet would be close to a 20 year old design by the time Canada replaced its CF-18's. Within 5-10 years we'd be in the exact same position we're in now. We'd have an aircraft nearing the end of its relevance. The US, for example, is planning to start retiring them and replacing them by 2025. Why would we buy into that???

A 1996 - F-35 - design is better and "newer" than a 1998 - F-18e/f(g) - design how?

[Moonbox]

A 1996 - F-35 - design is better and "newer" than a 1998 - F-18e/f(g) - design how?

First F-18E flight - 1995

First F-35 flight - 2006

That's a difference of 11 years, not to mention the fact that the F-18e design borrows heavily from the even older F-18 and shares much of the same avionics systems.

So yes. The F-35 is much better and much newer.

[Moonbox]

News flash "genious" the "technology" in BOTH airframes are IDENTICAL, and will ALWAYS be the BEST available until the 6th Gen. (unmanned) airframes take over 10-15 years from NOW... THEN they will be INCORPORATED in the "air combat pacs" which will include the F-18e/f/G SUPER HORNETS...

I don't think you've read anything about the F-35.

[GWiz]

First F-18E flight - 1995

First F-35 flight - 2006

That's a difference of 11 years, not to mention the fact that the F-18e design borrows heavily from the even older F-18 and shares much of the same avionics systems.

So yes. The F-35 is much better and much newer.

So you don't care that the F-35 is STILL not anywhere near "production", 7 YEARS past it's "completion date" and counting, has MOST countries that are in the "purchase option" program buying NEEDED NOW planes...

Let's put it this way, to make it easier for your mind to comprehend, a plane, built in 2020, with the latest 2020 "technologies", is a NEW PLANE, be it called F-35 OR F-18e/f, or any other plane built in 2020...

edit add on

One thing I DO know is that there will be NEW F-18e/f/G SUPER HORNETS flying in 2020... I CAN'T say the same for the F-35 in any version...

Edited March 11, 2011 by GWiz

[no1ninja]

Good point Gwiz.

Also, with these techs... it takes years to iron them out. Newer in military, does not always mean better. Sometimes you are the guinea pigs and do not have the relevant data to know how systems function under varying scenarios.

With new equipment, you often need new conflict, so that the staff has improvisational experience which can only be gained through trial.

Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja

[GWiz]

I don't think you've read anything about the F-35.

Not only READ, but at one point strongly supported, the JSF F-35 program back in 1997... Been CLOSELY following it ever since...

But then that was the INEXPENSIVE "dream plane" to "rule the skies" which the CURRENT F-35 is no semblance of...

[bush_cheney2004]

So you don't care that the F-35 is STILL not anywhere near "production", 7 YEARS past it's "completion date" and counting, has MOST countries that are in the "purchase option" program buying NEEDED NOW planes...

This is false....the F-35 program has already let contracts through LRIP IV and LRIP V is currently in contract negotiations. The F-35 is in low rate production, just like any other program start-up.

[GWiz]

This is false....the F-35 program has already let contracts through LRIP IV and LRIP V is currently in contract negotiations. The F-35 is in low rate production, just like any other program start-up.

Hi BC, been waitin' for ya...

[waldo]

But then that was the INEXPENSIVE "dream plane" to "rule the skies" which the CURRENT F-35 is no semblance of...

and... facing a 66% cost estimate discrepancy between what PBO Page's report identifies as compared to the cost identified by the Harper Government™. Notwithstanding, these identified points of consideration/uncertainty:

• Increases in research, development, test and evaluation costs. Between 2001 and 2009, the RDT&E cost is up 40% and production costs have increased 54%.

• Elimination of the alternative engine program, which would leave Canada with no competitive leverage to lower engine costs. The cost and quality implications of having a single engine provider are hard to predict.

• Elimination of the troubled F-35B variant, which could drive up unit cost owing to a smaller total buy.

• Integration of non-U.S. weapon systems. The integration of nation-specific weapons not cleared by Lockheed Martin and the Defense Department may lead to additional cost that will be borne by Canada. Negotiations over the purchase of F-35s by the Israeli air force highlight this issue.

• Reductions in U.S. and international sales. Cuts in intended procurement may lead to increases in the per-unit acquisition cost paid by Canada.

• The unique cost of operating and supporting a fifth-generation strike fighter. The cost constitutes a significantly unknown quantity.

• Changed circumstances at the time of mid-life upgrades and overhauls. They will be expensive and may be dependent on the availability of Lockheed Martin workforce and facilities.

[segnosaur]

So you don't care that the F-35 is STILL not anywhere near "production", 7 YEARS past it's "completion date"

Psssttt....

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d3f2616c-4ef6-4e7e-b0c1-b79713c5f48b

The first production F-35, CTOL aircraft AF-6, made an hour-long first flight today (Feb. 25) from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant...

[GWiz]

and... facing a 66% cost estimate discrepancy between what PBO Page's report identifies as compared to the cost identified by the Harper Government™. Notwithstanding, these identified points of consideration/uncertainty:

Exactly right, yet only a fraction of the problems, both seen and unseen, plaquing the JSF program... The FACT that the avionics and weapons systems SOFTWARE is only 60-70% completed as of TODAY being the MAJOR one...

[segnosaur]

Not only READ, but at one point strongly supported, the JSF F-35 program back in 1997... Been CLOSELY following it ever since..

Really? if you've been "following it closely" then how come you made the claim that it was "nowhere near production" when they've actually finished the first production model of the plane last month?

Not that there haven't been problems, and not that there won't be problems in the future, but darn it, such uninformed statements make the critics of the F35 look incredibly foolish.

[Moonbox]

Also saying that the F-35 and F18E use the same technologies is rather dubious for someone who's read a lot about it.

I'm not really all that on board with the F-35 myself, but I'd rather go with that than the F18E

[waldo]

Really? if you've been "following it closely" then how come you made the claim that it was "nowhere near production" when they've actually finished the first production model of the plane last month?

Not that there haven't been problems, and not that there won't be problems in the future, but darn it, such uninformed statements make the critics of the F35 look incredibly foolish.

you're certainly pumping up the volume over something that's, what... 2 weeks old now? Notwithstanding, the play on "production"... at what point does a development plane actually translate into... "production" status?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you think about it for a minute, the Americans are having issues with the development process these days. Their track record kinda sucks when you get done to the crunch. Look at the F22 program. Its dead is the first clue. It was deemed unfit for all weather flight ops. That program was a very expensive bust. The Americans are all over the F35 like white on rice, the program is under a microscope. If things don't get straightened out right quickly there will be trouble enough for all to see. Our delivery position is way off into the future, so it may become a moot point, but even so the program viability is now in question.

[segnosaur]

Really? if you've been "following it closely" then how come you made the claim that it was "nowhere near production" when they've actually finished the first production model of the plane last month?

you're certainly pumping up the volume over something that's, what... 2 weeks old now?

GWiz made an incorrect statement about the plane being "nowhere near production". I provided evidence that he was wrong, that indeed the plane was in production. The fact that the information was 2 weeks old is irrelevant... GWiz was still wrong.

Notwithstanding, the play on "production"... at what point does a development plane actually translate into... "production" status?

Well, from what I hear the U.S. air force is expecting its first shipment during 2011 (i.e. this year). It will be a small shipment (and I'm sure the U.S. will get priority for new planes for the next little while), but they are being made.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_force_structure_051610W/

[bush_cheney2004]

you're certainly pumping up the volume over something that's, what... 2 weeks old now? Notwithstanding, the play on "production"... at what point does a development plane actually translate into... "production" status?

When the contract says so...that's why it is called "LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION (LRIP)".

This means that the prototype evaluation phase has transitioned to production for purposes of supply base, tooling, op-eval, engineering change requests, training, etc.

[Topaz]

The Bloc which was for the F35, are not against it when they found out there's no guanantee work for Quebec as thought. also, Israel is thinking of not ordering as many because of the price and the delay in delivery. This has to push the price up when nations start bowing out or not take as many.

[Wild Bill]

GWiz made an incorrect statement about the plane being "nowhere near production". I provided evidence that he was wrong, that indeed the plane was in production. The fact that the information was 2 weeks old is irrelevant... GWiz was still wrong.

Well, from what I hear the U.S. air force is expecting its first shipment during 2011 (i.e. this year). It will be a small shipment (and I'm sure the U.S. will get priority for new planes for the next little while), but they are being made.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_force_structure_051610W/

Mr. 'Saur, I caught a brief bit of CBC NW at suppertime last night on this issue. The Tory spokesman mentioned that the Opposition was not calculating the purported cost over-runs for the F-35 correctly, perhaps deliberately.

From what I overheard (and admittedly I wasn't paying full attention as I was cooking supper at the time) his point was that the over-runs have to do with R & D stuff, i.e. more engineering or whatever. These costs are not part of the deal for F-35 customers, who get a price already calculated based on true production costs.

In other words, working out all the bugs is on Uncle Sam's tab and countries like Canada, Australia and other customers don't have to pay for that.

Have you heard anything more about this and perhaps can explain it better? If this is true, not only does it put the Harper decisions in a better light but it makes the Opposition look like they're deliberately twisting things for partisan purposes.

This of course would not be at all surprising, given that the Liberals absolutely refuse to grant the fact that it was THEIR government that committed us to the F-35 in the first place!

[segnosaur]

If you think about it for a minute, the Americans are having issues with the development process these days. Their track record kinda sucks when you get done to the crunch. Look at the F22 program. Its dead is the first clue.

Wouldn't necessarily say that the F22 is "dead". The plane was very expensive (understandable, given the advanced features of the plane... vectored thrust, supersonic speed with no afterburners, low radar cross section), and the number on order was greatly reduced. But its in service now, and while there have been problems there have also been successes.

It was deemed unfit for all weather flight ops.

There were problems with rain with some of the planes stationed in Guam. However, they did fix the problems.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_F22_100409w/

[bush_cheney2004]

If you think about it for a minute, the Americans are having issues with the development process these days. Their track record kinda sucks when you get done to the crunch. Look at the F22 program. Its dead is the first clue.

F-22's are still in production. How many 5th Gen air superiority fighter or strike aircraft has Canada developed?

[waldo]

GWiz made an incorrect statement about the plane being "nowhere near production". I provided evidence that he was wrong, that indeed the plane was in production. The fact that the information was 2 weeks old is irrelevant... GWiz was still wrong.

Well, from what I hear the U.S. air force is expecting its first shipment during 2011 (i.e. this year). It will be a small shipment (and I'm sure the U.S. will get priority for new planes for the next little while), but they are being made.

I simply drew upon what seemed to be your emphasis on a (his) long history of review... which may or may not have been familiar with a most recent 2 week event. In any case my more particular point centered around the "production" label reference. Clearly, in the many years from now context of when Canada is presumed to receive it's flight-ready planes, playing off the alphabet-soup designations of the multi-lot LRIP development phases seems a might premature.

[segnosaur]

Mr. 'Saur, I caught a brief bit of CBC NW at suppertime last night on this issue. The Tory spokesman mentioned that the Opposition was not calculating the purported cost over-runs for the F-35 correctly, perhaps deliberately.

...his point was that the over-runs have to do with R & D stuff, i.e. more engineering or whatever. These costs are not part of the deal for F-35 customers, who get a price already calculated based on true production costs.

Have you heard anything more about this and perhaps can explain it better?

I think you did a pretty good job at explaining it, but an actual on-line reference would be very helpful. (I prefer to be cautions about these things.)

To be honest, its quite possible that the 'cost overruns' won't affect our purchase price. But then, these sorts of deals can be very complex... development price vs. production cost, maintenance contracts vs. expected life time of plane, etc. I'm sure there's politicking and cherry picking of data from both sides of the debate. I doubt we'll truly know the true cost until we actually have them sitting on our air strips (well, assuming we do indeed purchase them.)

I cannot say for certain whether the F-35 will be a "good buy" for Canada. But so far, most of the arguments made by F-35 critics seem to be flawed.

[segnosaur]

I simply drew upon what seemed to be your emphasis on a (his) long history of review... which may or may not have been familiar with a most recent 2 week event.

Well, the best way to explain this is the old saying: On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

GWiz claims to be "knowledgeable" about certain things (the F-35, the economy, etc.), but is arguments are often quite easy to debunk.

Its quite possible that he's not familiar with an event that's only 2 weeks old (although he should have still known it was "close to production"). However, I think the more logical explanation is that he's not quite as knowledgeable as he is claiming to be.