Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[Smallc]

Okay man your link just supports that the Dutch planes are going to cost $120M. I guess the Dutch are paying twice what we are then???

You didn't read the link...or the bolded section. That price is an average of all 3 models, not the model that the dutch will be buying. The total also may be more than just the base cost.

[William Ashley]

The f35 deal is bad due to loss of support and not enough interest in it.

I still support it though, for NORAD. There are better options though.

Edited December 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0224462720101202

There are others, but I can't find them right now. The price may be a bit higher than what we were told, but it certainly won't be $130M for the A model.

From the same source we have

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0114345920101201?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r2:c0.130435:b39988374:z0

Which shows a $92M/unit cost in 2002 dollars. Add 6ish years of inflation at 2% (estimate) and you have the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer indicating a $100M + fighter. I'm not sure I really trust LM in this regard.

When I make arguments, I do so based on expert opinion. You're under the assumption that the USDoD is wrong with this project.

You're not in this case. You've cited Lockheed Martin spokespeople and the Ottawa Citizen, which I find strange given what we're talking about here.

You're trying to make a very good aircraft into something it isn't. The evidence on the construction of the plane and the systems it possesses (much more than stealth, it's about command and control) doesn't agree with you.

The F-35 is a great strike craft. It's a mediocre fighter. I suggest you actually learn a little bit about the plane itself, and compare it to others, before you start telling us what the plane can and can't do. As for command and control, that's a non-factor altogether. The British are flying the Eurofighter for air-superiority and the F-35 for strike missions, much like the Americans are doing with the F-22 and the F-35. Are you suggesting that the British are going to install inferior command and control systems on their Typhoons than their F-35's? The avionics package is upgradeable and interchangeable.

If you take a look at British aircraft procurement over the last 50 years, they have a LONG history of abandoning their homegrown projects in favor of American versions if they deem them superior. It seems that hasn't happened in the case of the F-35 and Eurofighter.

There are no real pane to plane comparisons available, so I'm not sure what you keep talking about there.

Not to be rude but maybe start with the basics and take a look at how air-to-air engagements are fought, then look at different aircraft specs. With that knowledge in hand the arguments being made about the F-35 (here and on the professional level) might make a lot more sense to you.

As an aside if you go back into this and various other threads about the F-35, you might remember that I was one of the strongest supporters of the program. Gradually over the last few months, the more I read about it the less and less I liked it.

[Smallc]

Which shows a $92M/unit cost in 2002 dollars. Add 6ish years of inflation at 2% (estimate) and you have the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer indicating a $100M + fighter. I'm not sure I really trust LM in this regard.

What does that include though? We don't know that yet. The price we were given was $130M per aircraft with all supporting infrastructure and technology. That doesn't seem far off at all. The eurofighter, btw, would cost no less.

You're not in this case. You've cited Lockheed Martin spokespeople and the Ottawa Citizen, which I find strange given what we're talking about here.

The US is buying the things. They chose it over other aircraft and they continue to support the program despite problems.

The F-35 is a great strike craft. It's a mediocre fighter. I suggest you actually learn a little bit about the plane itself, and compare it to others, before you start telling us what the plane can and can't do. As for command and control, that's a non-factor altogether. The British are flying the Eurofighter for air-superiority and the F-35 for strike missions, much like the Americans are doing with the F-22 and the F-35. Are you suggesting that the British are going to install inferior command and control systems on their Typhoons than their F-35's? The avionics package is upgradeable and interchangeable.

You've proven that you know nothing by saying that command and control are irrelevant in a battle. This isn't 1950. The data links and programming that both the F-22 and F-35 possess are so far superior to what is on the eurofighter that it isn't even a comparison. A group of F-35s is a linked network that can function as one in a battle. Not so for the eurofighter.

So lets see:

You're wrong about stealth, you're wrong about the first shot principle. you're wrong about maneuverability, and you're wrong about command and control.

If you take a look at British aircraft procurement over the last 50 years, they have a LONG history of abandoning their homegrown projects in favor of American versions if they deem them superior. It seems that hasn't happened in the case of the F-35 and Eurofighter.

They're procuring both...they've always procured both...at least for the last few decades.

Not to be rude but maybe start with the basics and take a look at how air-to-air engagements are fought, then look at different aircraft specs. With that knowledge in hand the arguments being made about the F-35 (here and on the professional level) might make a lot more sense to you.

When was the last air to air engagement? how was it fought? How would one be fought today? Prove that the F-35 is not able to maneuver.

As an aside if you go back into this and various other threads about the F-35, you might remember that I was one of the strongest supporters of the program. Gradually over the last few months, the more I read about it the less and less I liked it.

Good for you. As I've already said, I care little for what you think. The F-35 is a 400% improvement over the F-16, F-18, and even the F-15. It's very competitive (and in many ways better) than anything that the Europeans or Russians can throw out.

[William Ashley]

A group of F-35s is a linked network that can function as one in a battle. Not so for the eurofighter.

You mean the system can be overiden by a remote control?

Wow I just thought of the coolest system.

You know how UFO's are all bright light.

Wouldn't it be a massively cool system if you could light up like a christmas tree to blind anyone who is trying to use visual confirmation with multiband EM - at such an intense level that it blinds anyone who looks at it (yet the cockpit itself would have a filter for the "frequency of EM bands emitted by the system" like a flare/chaff etc.. but that the entire system output.. and at the same time was capable of ball lightening so that on lock down as a signature mask you could also "fork" into two or more points in terms of EM sensor reads. Like a jam and human command and control.

At the same time wouldn't it necesitate a a dual point filter - that is the plane and helmet are both interlocked were a forward sensor or sensors would have to exist in flash compensation to filter out any harmful bands.

Seems like a cool defensive mechanism...

But it still wouldn't defend against "remote systems" but remote systems drones would be mission operation based and potentially foolable if you could "hide the system' from their engagement criteria.

Sort of a double edged sword no?

Also remote command and linking is actually a potential danger if the system becomes hijacked.

But at the same time, your comment saying eurofighter pilots can't fly together is sort of stupid seeming.

Although it isn't command interoperatbility by systems. All you need to do is put an ai into the Eurofighter system and it would be capable of doing intuitive operations with any other systems it had knowledge of. Intuitive AI is way safer than remote operation. If you don't know how intuitive AI functions then I suggest you email me. It basically runs off from my basis FISH control systems formodi inteligent servicable hardware -- it allows systems to interpret their environments and assess what needs to be done to acheive "state success" meaning that they try to create an overall success in the environment they are in, they can itentify interacting apparati. The difference between standard AI is that the system can take inputs that are not only preprogramed "jump points" like a goto based upon apparatus state but they can also be manipulated by external control, or in reverse manipulate other apparati - if the control would be a critical failure. the intutive programing is that if mutliple systems existed then they could within a margin "estimate how the other systems would respond , and how they would respond to one anothers actions. (pilots can do this - but the ai does it by recognizing and processing potentially far faster and more data - it can also account for - suprise functions - that a human pilot may not be able to account for. Using my physics simulator like "virtual earth super computer" the system can train for all operations and take the best jump points for any given operation and "potential engagement' but also have secondary jumppoints for "hidden engagement systems" - but also base things upon barriers by knowing all opotential things that can take them out such as the require N of energy and what is required to produce it amongst other things.. welcome to skynet.

Any external linking is a liability potential because communication channels (even if using qunatum tunneling) because all EM can be intercepted and manipulated to create critical failure by "erasing or adding" data" to any type of EM stream.

Systems must be fully EM sheilded or they become a trojan to interferance from outside EM systems that utilize communication streams.

The reality of a global combat is there.. but you must input signs that do not require system penetration.

There is of course the earth fake strike complex if you ever watched that one show where the spacemen bomb their own planet thinking it is the enemy planet.

You need some system to insure viability... the problem is is that light can be "faked" so how do you see the real light you have to create systems that can test for "false light" but you still need to be encased.

If you are seeing light you are open to EM attack.

however the systems themselves can have inbuilt "functions that identify them, and a failure to preform would "change the trust level" of the engagement.

For instance a air manouver or exhaust characteristic, or a weapons system action, or anything that can be used to "change" the state in a specific way. no need for EM interaction - outside of the Nforce -- since everything is emiting and receiving EM regardless (for the most part, not entirely true..) what is important is two fold 1. the signature or waveform being transmited and received and 2. what is behind it.

The problem mostly beyond current technology is non EM emitting "stuff"

Edited December 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

What does that include though? We don't know that yet. The price we were given was $130M per aircraft with all supporting infrastructure and technology. That doesn't seem far off at all. The eurofighter, btw, would cost no less.

What are you even talking about?? The price we were given was WAY below that. The price the Pentagon is suggesting the AIRPLANE will cost, however is well above $100M each.

The US is buying the things. They chose it over other aircraft and they continue to support the program despite problems.

You're smarter than this I thought. What sort of argument is that??? The fact that the US is choosing this over the Eurofighter is proof of the F-35 being superior? Wouldn't that mean that the British and the Germans wouldn't be building the Eurofighter? Aside from the fact that the US will never fly anything non-American, they're also flying the F-15, the Super Hornet and the F-22 along side the F-35.

You've proven that you know nothing by saying that command and control are irrelevant in a battle.

No, I've proven that you're struggling with the reading and comprehension part of this argument. I didn't say command and control were irrelevant. I asked you how you thought the F-35 would have such superior command and control over the Eurofighter, and why the British would be installing inferior systems on their Eurofighters. Does that make sense? No. They'll be comparable. The more you post the more you're showing YOU don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't 1950. The data links and programming that both the F-22 and F-35 possess are so far superior to what is on the eurofighter that it isn't even a comparison. A group of F-35s is a linked network that can function as one in a battle. Not so for the eurofighter.

Sooo far superior? You sure you're not making that up? Or taking that from another Lockheed spokesman?

So lets see:

You're wrong about stealth, you're wrong about the first shot principle. you're wrong about maneuverability, and you're wrong about command and control.

Did we go back to 4th grade smallc? I'm wrong? Just like that?? Where did you show us that??

You don't know anything about the planes. You've shown that over and over in this thread. What have you read about the F-35 in terms of stealth? Nothing I'm assuming?

Try this:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

There's a non-partisan 3rd party PhD making the same case. I'm not saying he knows everything about it, but he seems to have a pretty good idea and Australia is in the same boat as us (and also, worrying about the F-35's capabilities).

When was the last air to air engagement? how was it fought? How would one be fought today? Prove that the F-35 is not able to maneuver.

Well first off, the last 600 air-to-air kills registered with BVR aircraft only resulted in something like 20 BVR kills. The rest had to go to WVR, suggesting that the systems weren't nearly as effective as people thought. You can take my word on that or I can link it if I have to. It was a RAND briefing I read awhile ago.

As for its air-to-air capabilities, simply look at its design. Italian pilots involved with the F-35 say it performs between the F-16 and the F-18A, but closer to the F-18.

www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

It handles like an F-16. That's what it was designed to do. Compared to 4.5+ gen fighters, and even a lot of Russian planes, it's SIGNIFICANTLY slower, it can't climb as fast (about 20-25% lower thrust/weight ratio) and its wingload is higher than anything else in the air. It also can't fly as high, which means it can't maneuver as much and that its missiles can't fly as far.

Here's another interesting piece:

http://www.defencetalk.com/comparison-of-modern-fighter-aircraft-17086/

Which suggests that the Eurofighter has a 4.5:1 exchange ratio with the Su-35, but the F-16C has a 0.3:1 exchange ratio. Without stealth (which is the F-35's advantage over the F-16), the F-35 is dead in the air.

Good for you. As I've already said, I care little for what you think. The F-35 is a 400% improvement over the F-16, F-18, and even the F-15. It's very competitive (and in many ways better) than anything that the Europeans or Russians can throw out.

They wouldn't even indicate what fighters they were simulating against. They refused to comment

Regardless, the Eurofighter has simulated even better exchange ratios than that as linked above.

My problem with the F-35 is that it looks like it's going to cost over $120M each by today's estimates, and it flies like a legacy 30+ year old design. I wouldn't argue that its stealth abilities make up for that in large part right now, but I don't doubt for a second that Russia and China etc will learn how to detect it (or perhaps already have) not long after it flies off the production line.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Which suggests that the Eurofighter has a 4.5:1 exchange ratio with the Su-35, but the F-16C has a 0.3:1 exchange ratio. Without stealth (which is the F-35's advantage over the F-16), the F-35 is dead in the air.

And this is what it all comes down to, and what you're still not understanding. First, the stealth does exist, and will always provide an advantage as it will always be harder to detect. Second, as I've already said, it's all about first shot, and command and control. You're not understanding that the F-35 is one of the hardest aircraft to detect, and therefor hit, and you're not understanding that the F-35 has the best command and control, communications, and avionics in the world. It has one of the best radars in the world. It has situational awareness that even the F-22 could only dream of. That is why we're buying the thing. The 1950s and dogfights are things of the past. It's all about technology and first detection.

Yes, the F-35 has some weak spots, but it's currently the only 5th generation multirole aircraft on the market (and don't tell me it's only stealth - that's not the only thing that makes it fifth generation). The technology inside of it is far superior to that in the Eurofighter whether or not you want to admit it (THAT's what makes it a fifth generation even more than stealth). It is the only aircraft that can do what we need it to do - it can do air to air, even if it isn't the best at it, it can do air to ground better than pretty much anything else, and it can fly farther than almost anything out there. It still costs in the ballpark of the Eurofigher if not lower by the time 2016 rolls around (the costs you are citing are the average of the A that we're buying and the other two, more expensive airframes) and it is miles ahead in terms of technology and detection avoidance. You're focusing too much on one aspect and missing the entire package. This aspet has the whole package, and that's what we need.

BTW, the price we were quoted all told is $139M per aircraft, with infrastructure and technology included.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Here's something to chew on - who usually does air superiority in the US? It's the navy, and the'll be flying the F-35 as one of their two main platforms. It's not exactly the same version, but it's close enough. The reality is, it will be able to fill every role we need it to. It is slightly slower than our current jet, yes, but it makes up for it by being able to go twice as far. It's the right plane for what will hopefully be the right price.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Funny thing, the more I read, the more I like the F-35. The F-35 is capable of over the shoulder shots. The pilot has a 360 degree view form their helmet with aircraft tracked to the edge of the very sophisticated radar. The plane doesn't even have to face its opponent to shoot it. The F-22 can do this as well, but to a much more limited degree.

[Moonbox]

you're not understanding that the F-35 has the best command and control, communications, and avionics in the world. It has one of the best radars in the world. It has situational awareness that even the F-22 could only dream of.

You could put the same electronics in a Mig-21 if you were so inclined. It's the airframe I'm concerned with.

Yes, the F-35 has some weak spots, but it's currently the only 5th generation multirole aircraft on the market (and don't tell me it's only stealth - that's not the only thing that makes it fifth generation).

Well what else makes it fifth gen? Other than the avionics, which you could put on an F-16. The F-22 is fifth gen. It does so many things that 4th gen craft don't that it can safely qualify as that. The F-22 is significantly more stealthy, can supercruise, has thrust vectoring, unmatched in maneuverability. It does everything. The F-35 has stealth, (albeit a significantly downgraded version) and avionics and radar etc that could be put on any other fighter on the market.

The technology inside of it is far superior to that in the Eurofighter whether or not you want to admit it (THAT's what makes it a fifth generation even more than stealth).

The only thing that makes the F-35 fifth generation is that Lockheed Martin calls it that. It's immensely inferior to the F-22 in pretty much all regards and aside from stealth.

BTW, the price we were quoted all told is $139M per aircraft, with infrastructure and technology included.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll go along with what the Americans, Dutch etc are anticipating it will cost, rather than what Lockheed is desperately trying to assure them.

[Smallc]

You could put the same electronics in a Mig-21 if you were so inclined. It's the airframe I'm concerned with.

No you couldn't. And if you could, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Well what else makes it fifth gen? Other than the avionics, which you could put on an F-16. The F-22 is fifth gen. It does so many things that 4th gen craft don't that it can safely qualify as that. The F-22 is significantly more stealthy, can supercruise, has thrust vectoring, unmatched in maneuverability. It does everything. The F-35 has stealth, (albeit a significantly downgraded version) and avionics and radar etc that could be put on any other fighter on the market.

So you could do something...and? The technology and avionics are unmatched. Maneuverability has nothing to do with being a fifth generation fighter. Maneuverability, because it's a fifth generation fighter, becomes less of an issue. As for the stealth being significantly downgraded...no. It's still better than anything else, it's simply not quite as good. From everywhere but the rear, the plane appears as a metal golfball rather than a metal marble. The PAK-FA, which doesn't even exist, won't even be that good.

The only thing that makes the F-35 fifth generation is that Lockheed Martin calls it that. It's immensely inferior to the F-22 in pretty much all regards and aside from stealth.

And, as I've already told you, the technology it carries. That's what fifth generation is about. Stealth and technology. Whether or not something can maneuver (and BTW, we don't know how it will maneuver - based on mathematical calculations the F-15 should outmaneuver that F-22...but it doesn't.

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll go along with what the Americans, Dutch etc are anticipating it will cost, rather than what Lockheed is desperately trying to assure them.

You go right ahead, we're talking about the same price.

If the GAO is correct, it would place the fully-loaded program cost of each F-35 at $137 million.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

We're not talking about flyaway cost. We're talking about the total cost of the plane. That's why we've been assured that it will be even less than we've budgeted. No matter what you say, the evidence shows that it is the right plane for the right money at the right time. The Eurofighter can't do anything but outmaneuver it....and even if it does, the pilot can see it, and the F-35 an shoot directly behind itself.

[Queenmandy85]

Both of you seem to really be caught up in the technology and ignoring the primary component, the pilot. Technology is a benifit but remember what happened in the Falklands. The British pilots flew harriers that were not as good as the French aircraft used by the Argentinians, yet they had the vital edge in pilots.

Those Argentinian planes that got through were attacked by AA missiles that sputtered and fell into the chuck The planes dropped bombs that clanked across the dect and failed to explode. That's sofisticated technology

[bush_cheney2004]

Both of you seem to really be caught up in the technology and ignoring the primary component, the pilot. Technology is a benifit but remember what happened in the Falklands. The British pilots flew harriers that were not as good as the French aircraft used by the Argentinians, yet they had the vital edge in pilots.

Except for the crew of HMS Sheffield (D80). It was attacked with an Exocet via Neptune detection and Super Entenards.

[dre]

No you couldn't. And if you could, it would be prohibitively expensive.

So you could do something...and? The technology and avionics are unmatched. Maneuverability has nothing to do with being a fifth generation fighter. Maneuverability, because it's a fifth generation fighter, becomes less of an issue. As for the stealth being significantly downgraded...no. It's still better than anything else, it's simply not quite as good. From everywhere but the rear, the plane appears as a metal golfball rather than a metal marble. The PAK-FA, which doesn't even exist, won't even be that good.

And, as I've already told you, the technology it carries. That's what fifth generation is about. Stealth and technology. Whether or not something can maneuver (and BTW, we don't know how it will maneuver - based on mathematical calculations the F-15 should outmaneuver that F-22...but it doesn't.

You go right ahead, we're talking about the same price.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

We're not talking about flyaway cost. We're talking about the total cost of the plane. That's why we've been assured that it will be even less than we've budgeted. No matter what you say, the evidence shows that it is the right plane for the right money at the right time. The Eurofighter can't do anything but outmaneuver it....and even if it does, the pilot can see it, and the F-35 an shoot directly behind itself.

I dont even think we have SEEN the right evidence yet. I have yet to see any real cost benefit analysis, and Im concerned whether this plane (while clearly being an excellent strike fighter) is the right plane to fly the 500-1000 routine patrol missions per year that are the bulk of what our airforce does. Whats gonna happen to the cost of each of those missions? And are countries like the US and UK using these planes for those type of garden variety patrols?

[M.Dancer]

Both of you seem to really be caught up in the technology and ignoring the primary component, the pilot. Technology is a benifit but remember what happened in the Falklands. The British pilots flew harriers that were not as good as the French aircraft used by the Argentinians, yet they had the vital edge in pilots.

Those Argentinian planes that got through were attacked by AA missiles that sputtered and fell into the chuck The planes dropped bombs that clanked across the dect and failed to explode. That's sofisticated technology

The argentians were hampered by the fact that by the time they reached the british pickets, thet were too low on fuel to do much while the Harriers could weave and bob...had the falklands been 100 miles closer to Srgentina, the battle could have ended very differntly.

[Smallc]

Whats gonna happen to the cost of each of those missions?

Well based on the fact that the F-16 was benchmarked, they should cost less than what we currently pay. It's just the aircraft that costs more (and the fully loaded program really isn't that much more).

And are countries like the US and UK using these planes for those type of garden variety patrols?

Yes, and even more expensive planes.

[Moonbox]

No you couldn't. And if you could, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Yes. It would be pointless to upgrade the Mig-21 with F-35 avionics because the airframe isn't worthy of it. The point is that the avionics are upgradeable and interchangeable. Most fighters receive numerous upgrades and refits over their life times. S

Maneuverability, because it's a fifth generation fighter, becomes less of an issue. As for the stealth being significantly downgraded...no. It's still better than anything else, it's simply not quite as good.

We can only hope maneuverability is no longer an issue. As for the stealth, consider this:

The F-22 first flew in 1997. At the time it was virtually undetectable. The Russians have since had 10 years to refine their radar technology to help detect the F-22. By the time the F-35 comes out, they will have almost had 20 years. The F-35 also has a radar signature 10x bigger than the F-22. What we have here then is 20 years of radar tech refinement, with a significant step back in radar detection evasion. Hopefully the Russians, Chinese, Indians etc stay behind for another 20-30 years right?

From everywhere but the rear, the plane appears as a metal golfball rather than a metal marble. The PAK-FA, which doesn't even exist, won't even be that good.

Check your facts again their kiddo. The F-35 has excellent stealth properties from the front but from 25 -30 degree angles and beyond its stealth properties degrade significantly. That's why they're refitting some of the F-22 squadrons to strike planes, so that they have a reliable deep-strike capabilities to knock out radar and SAM networks at the beginning of a conflict, so that it's safer for the F-35's later on.

Whether or not something can maneuver (and BTW, we don't know how it will maneuver - based on mathematical calculations the F-15 should outmaneuver that F-22...but it doesn't.

The F-22 has thrust vectoring nozzles and a better t/w ratio.

No matter what you say, the evidence shows that it is the right plane for the right money at the right time.

Well there's a really compelling argument smallc. How can I compete with that? :rolleyes:

The Eurofighter can't do anything but outmaneuver it....and even if it does, the pilot can see it, and the F-35 an shoot directly behind itself.

Yeah I don't think many pilots are terrified about that, especially in a BVR engagement. A missile shot backwards, from below its target (the F-35 can't fly as high remember) would have a pretty poor chance of hitting. First it would have to overcome the speed of the plane flying the other direction, and second it would have to climb to its target.

The Eurofighter does everything better than the F-35 except hide from radar, and its newest versions will carry a similar AESA radar to the F-35.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

The Eurofighter does everything better than the F-35 except hide from radar, and its newest versions will carry a similar AESA radar to the F-35.

It still doesn't have the command and control technology, which is something that you keep glossing over time and again. The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, and so is not as highly maneuverable as those particular craft. An air superiority fighter though, is not what we need. We need a strike craft that can also protect our airspace. Those are the roles that we perform, and no other aircraft is right for those roles. Also, no other aircraft allows us to integrate with our closest ally in combat the same way. Rail against it all you want, but you shown any reason why this isn't the right aircraft.

[Moonbox]

Also, no other aircraft allows us to integrate with our closest ally in combat the same way. Rail against it all you want, but you shown any reason why this isn't the right aircraft.

It really comes down to cost doesn't it? Neither of us know what it's going to cost, and if it ends up costing $75M per unit I'm not railing against it at all.

At $100M+, it's not worth it, secretary Gates says it's not worth it as well. I'll trust him on that and hope Lockheed puts the aircraft together for the price they promised, otherwise this will be the biggest boondoggle in procurement history.

[Smallc]

At $100M+, it's not worth it, secretary Gates says it's not worth it as well. I'll trust him on that and hope Lockheed puts the aircraft together for the price they promised, otherwise this will be the biggest boondoggle in procurement history.

I agree. That said, at just under $140M per aircraft for the entire program (infrastructure, ordinance, planes and engines) it isn't all that bad. In fact at that price, it will be hard to find a beter deal.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Queenmandy85]

Except for the crew of HMS Sheffield (D80). It was attacked with an Exocet via Neptune detection and Super Entenards.

You have not adressed the problem of numbers. If we are facing an enemy with an air force numbering in the hundreds, 65 planes are not going to be able to provide air superiority. It is folly to put that much money into a futile gesture.

Put it towards A-10's and cheaper fighters to cover the ground attack, or (as stated earlier that Canadians don't want to defend the country) put that money into paying down the deficit or social housing and a white flag.

[Smallc]

If we are facing an enemy with an air force numbering in the hundreds, 65 planes are not going to be able to provide air superiority. It is folly to put that much money into a futile gesture.

Who is going to be able to send that at us in a way that we won't see it coming for literally a day (besides the US)?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

You have not adressed the problem of numbers. If we are facing an enemy with an air force numbering in the hundreds, 65 planes are not going to be able to provide air superiority. It is folly to put that much money into a futile gesture.

Then logically Canada can never repel such an attack and should purchase a large number of white flags instead.

Put it towards A-10's and cheaper fighters to cover the ground attack, or (as stated earlier that Canadians don't want to defend the country) put that money into paying down the deficit or social housing and a white flag.

Fairchild A-10's are no longer in production...haven't been for many years. You could buy used from the Americans after they replace theirs with the F-35.

Edited December 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

I agree. That said, at just under $140M per aircraft for the entire program (infrastructure, ordinance, planes and engines) it isn't all that bad. In fact at that price, it will be hard to find a beter deal.

I doubt ordinance is included. I mean, How many missiles could a plane fire in its lifetime? And they are all included?....that would indeed be a deal.

[Smallc]

I doubt ordinance is included. I mean, How many missiles could a plane fire in its lifetime? And they are all included?....that would indeed be a deal.

I think it's only the initial load out. The rest is part of operations and maintenance. The initial price may not include ordinance though (though I was sure I had read that). I could be just planes, engines, technology, and infrastructure.