Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[Moonbox]

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.

The latest figures I've read were flyaway costs of well over $100M. That's scary for what this plane can actually do.

[Smallc]

The latest figures I've read were flyaway costs of well over $100M. That's scary for what this plane can actually do.

Well, that isn't actually all that much more than it was supposed to be. It's about $20M per plane more than it was supposed to be, and Lockheed says that they can get it back down by 2016. I hope they're right, because our $140M per aircraft figure probably has very little wiggle room built in.

[William Ashley]

I found this one line disturbing...

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Liberals+profess+plan+topple+Tories+over+budget/4042596/story.html

9 to 16 to 21.. up up and away!

[Wilber]

I'm still looking for a link that pegs the cost at 21 B but regardless I don't expect the real answer from any politician on either side of the floor so I won't debate the financial side.

Regarding the aircraft. We are not buying an air superiority aircraft, we are doing the same thing we did when we bought the F-18, a strike aircraft that can take care of itself. There were better air superiority aircraft available when we bought the F-18.

Every aircraft is a compromise. If you want stealth, you will be faced with aerodynamic design compromises that won't apply to an aircraft built strictly to dogfight. Any stealth is important. Since the beginning of air to air combat, the guy who sees the other guy first usually wins. The other guy doesn't have to be invisible, he just has to be stealthier than you. Considering the range of todays and future air to air missiles, if you haven't detected a guy 30+ miles away and he has detected you, you have a problem because he has probably already launched a missile and the missile can see you because you ain't stealthy.

[William Ashley]

intercepted....

[Moonbox]

I'm still looking for a link that pegs the cost at 21 B but regardless I don't expect the real answer from any politician on either side of the floor so I won't debate the financial side.

Regarding the aircraft. We are not buying an air superiority aircraft, we are doing the same thing we did when we bought the F-18, a strike aircraft that can take care of itself. There were better air superiority aircraft available when we bought the F-18.

The F-18 was a highly capable air-to-air platform at the time. It could handle virtually everything that was thrown at it at the time. It was superior to pretty much anything but the Tomcat and the Eagle at the time.

The F-35, aside from the stealth and avionics, won't even match up to 35+ year old aircraft in that regard.

We can only hope that battle doctrine and technology actually render WVR combat obsolete, otherwise the F-35 is going to get curbstomped. My fear is that they've been saying BVR combat will become the norm for decades now, and it's never happened. Planes have always found ways to evade LRM's.

[William Ashley]

not so fast there buddy

I found it funny to compare Harpers 80+ Billion tabled military spending with this page of "most expensive things in the world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_most_expensive_single_objects

Check out three gorges

the total electric generating capacity of the dam will eventually reach 22.5 GigaWatts

oddly that is 1 gigawatt per billion ... hmm odd.. how much did it cost canada to develope its 650000 gigawatts of electric capacity?

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

The F-18 was a highly capable air-to-air platform at the time. It could handle virtually everything that was thrown at it at the time. It was superior to pretty much anything but the Tomcat and the Eagle at the time.

The F-35, aside from the stealth and avionics, won't even match up to 35+ year old aircraft in that regard.

We can only hope that battle doctrine and technology actually render WVR combat obsolete, otherwise the F-35 is going to get curbstomped. My fear is that they've been saying BVR combat will become the norm for decades now, and it's never happened. Planes have always found ways to evade LRM's.

You speak like stealth and avionics are no big deal. Stealth has proved itself and avionics are an integral part of any aircraft. One thing hasn't changed ove the years, the first shot is usually the most effective. Avionics that allowed the F-14 to track and shoot multiple targets and the Phoenix missile system were a large part of what made it such a formidable aircraft in its day. Like the F-4 it replaced it was a bit of a tank compared to the F-15, F-16 and F-18.

Every aircraft design trades off some attributes in order to take better advantage of others.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Wilber

[punked]

Could be worse we could elect the Liberals to cancel a contract then sign a more expensive one. Remember that is what happened the last time the Liberals promised to buy less expensive military equipment oh and we got 8 years later because of it.

Know what this says to me? Vote NDP because we know the Liberals don't have a good record at this stuff.

[Moonbox]

You speak like stealth and avionics are no big deal. Stealth has proved itself and avionics are an integral part of any aircraft.

Stealth hasn't really been 'proven' at all. It hasn't faced anything but third-world, poorly trained, rag-tag armies/airforces. Beating up on Iraq is hardly evidence of the success of stealth technology. The poor dudes had lost their radar, command and control network within the first few hours of the conflict. The most interesting part about this was that the opening moves of Desert Storm were undertaken by Apache gunships, where they flew in low to knock out Iraqi radar stations.

As for avionics, like I said before you can install the same avionics on pretty much every plane out there if you want. It's not really an advantage to the airframe itself.

One thing hasn't changed ove the years, the first shot is usually the most effective. Avionics that allowed the F-14 to track and shoot multiple targets and the Phoenix missile system were a large part of what made it such a formidable aircraft in its day. Like the F-4 it replaced it was a bit of a tank compared to the F-15, F-16 and F-18.

Out of hundreds of kills over the last few decades, only about 20 have been BVR kills, meaning the long range weapon systems did not pan out like people thought, and the encounters usually degraded to WVR dogfights.

Every aircraft design trades off some attributes in order to take better advantage of others.

The F-35 seems to make a lot of them, and they were mostly made to take advantage of cost savings, which is interesting because the plane is still hugely over budget.

[Wilber]

Stealth hasn't really been 'proven' at all. It hasn't faced anything but third-world, poorly trained, rag-tag armies/airforces. Beating up on Iraq is hardly evidence of the success of stealth technology. The poor dudes had lost their radar, command and control network within the first few hours of the conflict. The most interesting part about this was that the opening moves of Desert Storm were undertaken by Apache gunships, where they flew in low to knock out Iraqi radar stations.

As for avionics, like I said before you can install the same avionics on pretty much every plane out there if you want. It's not really an advantage to the airframe itself.

If you compare loss rates between stealth and non stealth strike aircraft in Iraq and elsewhere, the difference is clear. Avionics can carry a lot of different meanings. When you are dealing with unstable designs that have different fly by wire and other systems, you cannot just bang the same technology into different airframes. The computer code alone takes years to develop for each design.

As you point out, command and control is probably more important than the aircraft itself. The MIG 29 was a great air to air machine but was dog meat in Iraq. It rarely saw the other guy coming so its dog fighting abilities were useless. Just another example of the importance of seeing the other guy first.

Based on our experience with the F-18, the most likely combat role our fighters will see is strike, so that is where we should be placing the emphasis when we are shopping, not air superiority. We are only buying one type so there is no way we can have the best of everything. We are only buying 65 and if their primary roll is to be ground attack, stealth will be far more valuable than hair trigger maneuverability, rate of climb or top speed for their survival.

[Moonbox]

If you compare loss rates between stealth and non stealth strike aircraft in Iraq and elsewhere, the difference is clear.

Against a primitive, corrupt, poorly organized army which had already had most of its defensive network wiped out.

Since Desert Storm, the Russians have had 20 years to develop technology to detect stealth aircraft. By the time the F-35 comes out, it will have been 25 years. The F-35 is also 10x less stealthy than the Nighthawk, B-2 or F-22. The Russians will have had 25 years to refine their detection abilities, while at the same time we'll have downgraded stealth.

Avionics can carry a lot of different meanings. When you are dealing with unstable designs that have different fly by wire and other systems, you cannot just bang the same technology into different airframes. The computer code alone takes years to develop for each design.

Most planes have their own fly-by-wire systems now. We were talking about the radar, situational awareness, helmet mount displays etc when comparing different designs. I'm suggesting that basing your choice of airframe (which you'll be stuck with for 40 years) on the electronics/avionics package, is not the greatest idea considering you'll be swapping them out every decade or so anyways.

As you point out, command and control is probably more important than the aircraft itself. The MIG 29 was a great air to air machine but was dog meat in Iraq. It rarely saw the other guy coming so its dog fighting abilities were useless. Just another example of the importance of seeing the other guy first.

Like I said before, 90% of last 200 air-to air encounters ended up in a "WITHIN VISUAL RANGE" skirmish. In this situation, the F-35 is easily detected. AMRAAM kill ratios are abysmally low in any conflict recorded. The sidewinder has continued to reign supreme.

Based on our experience with the F-18, the most likely combat role our fighters will see is strike, so that is where we should be placing the emphasis when we are shopping, not air superiority. We are only buying one type so there is no way we can have the best of everything. We are only buying 65 and if their primary roll is to be ground attack, stealth will be far more valuable than hair trigger maneuverability, rate of climb or top speed for their survival.

If we need strike aircraft we should buy enough to fulfill the missions we're likely to need them for. We don't need 65 strike fighters. We'll never send that many anywhere. The most F-18s we ever sent anywhere was 20 I think. Buy 20-30 F-35's so we have some overseas capabilities to bomb whoever the Americans tell us to, and then spend less money on better air-to-air frames for sovereign air defense.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Moonbox

[William Ashley]

Could be worse we could elect the Liberals to cancel a contract then sign a more expensive one. Remember that is what happened the last time the Liberals promised to buy less expensive military equipment oh and we got 8 years later because of it.

Know what this says to me? Vote NDP because we know the Liberals don't have a good record at this stuff.

The tories cancled bearhead and then the tories leased a bunch of tanks they are suppose to apparently be leaving behind in afghanistan...

is that any different.

The real question is.........21 billion is a hell of a lot of money, couldn't canada develope its own 5 g plane at that price?

Like the f35 appears to be 1 trillion dollar plane..

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html

as opposed to say the Typhoon

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?188923-The-European-Typhoon-jet-is-winning-the-fight-for-the-11.5bn-(%A37.1bn)-Indian-MMRCA

£3.3 billion development costs plus £30 million per aircraft

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Eurofighter_Typhoon

Plus it keeps ALL the work in Canada.

Meaning about a 30% reduction in cost due to tax payback on any realized profit.

If done through a crown corp it is totally subsidized.

at 20 billion that is like 300 million an aircraft.

That is only say a $650 tax increase per tax payer.. but this plane is going to be outdated by the time it hits the tarmack.

The nextgen development project started ...

the only thing pushing this through is that new orders are needed by the end of this decade.. Canada has to have its next platform by the end of this decade... and normally there are a few years delay.

I was edgy at the 16 billion mark, at the 20 billion mark I am skeptical the value is there.

At that point, I tend to agree opening up the bag and putting in a tender for "INTERCEPT AIRCRAFT SUITABLE FOR POLAR CLIMATE" might be a good call for the government and see what comes up.

plus some of these on the list

VTOL capability

mach 2.1 or higher

high manoverability

ability to upgrade avionics

stealth to highest capacity possible

multiple failsafe

producution to be wholely done within canada

tender must include maximum price for all overuns on delivery required by 2018.

Needs to be interfacable with NATO missle systems capable of being manufactured in canada

may be priced with or without avionics - (although a list of avionics/communications packages capable of being installed should be included with tender)

needs to perform better than any other jet fighter in extremely low temperatures. and have ECM suites

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[Queenmandy85]

There are some who still feel Colonel J. Sutherland Brown's analysis holds true, in which case it would be better to configure our Defence policy around irregular tactics and organizing a more robust Reserve infrastructure. Absorbe an invasion and then grind them down. As you have all pointed out, we cannot hope to defeat our most probable enemies in a conventional conflict and Canadians have no stomach for a reasonable Defence commitment.

[William Ashley]

The cost of procuring a Peacekeeper missile (the "flyaway" cost) was only about $20 million (FY 82). The total cost of the program was approximately $20 billion however, at a pro-rated cost of $400 million per operational missile

I hear russia and the US have surplus stock too.... maybe a bargain shop environment right now!!!

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

There are some who still feel Colonel J. Sutherland Brown's analysis holds true, in which case it would be better to configure our Defence policy around irregular tactics and organizing a more robust Reserve infrastructure. Absorbe an invasion and then grind them down.

You mean train the population to be partisans?

[Wilber]

Against a primitive, corrupt, poorly organized army which had already had most of its defensive network wiped out.

Since Desert Storm, the Russians have had 20 years to develop technology to detect stealth aircraft. By the time the F-35 comes out, it will have been 25 years. The F-35 is also 10x less stealthy than the Nighthawk, B-2 or F-22. The Russians will have had 25 years to refine their detection abilities, while at the same time we'll have downgraded stealth.

Like I said before, 90% of last 200 air-to air encounters ended up in a "WITHIN VISUAL RANGE" skirmish. In this situation, the F-35 is easily detected. AMRAAM kill ratios are abysmally low in any conflict recorded. The sidewinder has continued to reign supreme.

Some stealth is a lot better than none. Within visual range encounters are usually decided by who gets first contact. You seeing him before him seeing you before you get into visual range allows you to get position and altitude on him before the fight starts and is a tremendous advantage. The battle is more than half won already.

Most planes have their own fly-by-wire systems now. We were talking about the radar, situational awareness, helmet mount displays etc when comparing different designs. I'm suggesting that basing your choice of airframe (which you'll be stuck with for 40 years) on the electronics/avionics package, is not the greatest idea considering you'll be swapping them out every decade or so anyways.

Most weapons systems are an integral part of an aircraft's design and work in concert with the other aircraft systems, particularly the flight controls and autopilot. You will be stuck with the same airframe for 40 years no matter what you buy.

If we need strike aircraft we should buy enough to fulfill the missions we're likely to need them for. We don't need 65 strike fighters. We'll never send that many anywhere. The most F-18s we ever sent anywhere was 20 I think. Buy 20-30 F-35's so we have some overseas capabilities to bomb whoever the Americans tell us to, and then spend less money on better air-to-air frames for sovereign air defense.

It may make more sense from a military perspective but it is always more expensive to operate more types. Ask Westjet and Southwest, that's why they only operate one. More spares, manuals, special tools and dedicated ground equipment, more training, maintenance personnel, crews and all the other support personnel to look after the extra support and paperwork generated by having another type. Some of those costs won't change much whether you have 20 or 100. A big reason to go with the C-17 and C-130 was commonality with our major allies allowing for mutual support in different theaters.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Wilber

[M.Dancer]

Against a primitive, corrupt, poorly organized army which had already had most of its defensive network wiped out.

Primitive? Not in the least. Primitive forces to not fly Mig 29s, Mig 25s, Mirage F-1s, SU 25s etc etc....

Primitive forces to not field sophisticated air defenses like SA series....16,000 missiles in 1990

And yes all their defensive networks were degraded....by stealth bombers...

[bush_cheney2004]

....The most F-18s we ever sent anywhere was 20 I think....

24 CF-188's were deployed to Qatar for Operation Desert Storm (Gulf War One), along with a tanker and support crew. Canada's missions were CAP, forward sweeps, and strike sorties late in the campaign.

[William Ashley]

Seeing as MLW for some reason deleted the this project is now $21 Billion thread... I thought I would remind this thread - even if it is now no longer current - for whatever paranoid reasons MLW admins deleted the new thread.

$21 billion not $16

300 million per plane

$21 000 000 000

$650+ from everyones pocket. Ontop of the $1300 for the new ships. As this new Harper Military Tax.. every tax payer $2000 in new taxes.

Happy new year.. enjoy the $2000 in new military taxes for the new year!!!

It makes far more sense to just put out a new tender for

Intercept Fighter for Polar Conditions

capable of mach 2.1+ operation

high manouverability

capable of carrying NATO missles made in Canada

to be produced in Canada

VTOL capable

upgradable avionics / sensors / comms

among a few other things

and see if it comes out anywhere near the $300 million this project would cost after the 30% deduction on a basis of tax reclamation. Meaning these aircraft could cost $390 million if they were made in Canada and still not cost as much.

It almost makes more sense just to buy a bunch of peacekeepers and warheads as a deterent. Who needs strike aircraft when you have mach 12 Multiple warhead missles?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/untold+story+Canada+deal/3961750/story.html

It is too much.

That would employ half a million people 525000 on a $40,000 income for a year. If not more.. with potential for residual ROI on whatever work the produced having return value. It could pay for years of "free post secondary education for all canadians"

That could start up a lot of work. Or better yet pay down the deficit.

Building up your military isn't bad.. but you should have they money in your hand to do it. You shouldn't be charging it to the credit card at the cost of future technology.

21 Billion dollars for 65 aircraft that likely will do very little to defend Canada.

A strike fighter or fighter bomber is a multi-role combat aircraft designed to operate primarily in the tactical bombing role

$300 MILLION A PLANE IS TOO MUCH!!

The only way I would nudge from this, is if it was a fully domestic Canadian Aircraft that presented residual benefit to the Canadian Miltiary Industrial Complex. And that it was up to date and current - unlike the F35. The F35 was suppose to be an economic aircraft - not the best. It isn't economical.

Edited January 1, 2011 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

Primitive? Not in the least. Primitive forces to not fly Mig 29s, Mig 25s, Mirage F-1s, SU 25s etc etc....

Primitive forces to not field sophisticated air defenses like SA series....16,000 missiles in 1990

And yes all their defensive networks were degraded....by stealth bombers...

Primitive and useless in the face of the opposition. You had one third world nation run by a yahoo dictator and with the training of a monkey fighting 100:1 odds in the desert against the world's biggest super power.

As for how the defensive networks were degraded, read up on the first moves of Desert Storm. The most dangerous radar networks were wiped out by Tomahawk missiles and low flying Apache gunships well before the first stealth bomber flew anywhere.

[M.Dancer]

Primitive and useless in the face of the opposition. You had one third world nation run by a yahoo dictator and with the training of a monkey fighting 100:1 odds in the desert against the world's biggest super power.

As for how the defensive networks were degraded, read up on the first moves of Desert Storm. The most dangerous radar networks were wiped out by Tomahawk missiles and low flying Apache gunships well before the first stealth bomber flew anywhere.

*cough* baghada was attacked by plane day one....baghdad is out of range of US helicopters.

[Moonbox]

*cough* baghada was attacked by plane day one....baghdad is out of range of US helicopters.

So what? Helicopters flew over the border beforehand and knocked out the outlying radar stations. Cruise missiles did the same.

[M.Dancer]

So what? Helicopters flew over the border beforehand and knocked out the outlying radar stations. Cruise missiles did the same.

The radar network is far more thn the dish...the command and control centres of whioch there were far more than one and needed more than a cruise missile attack to disable...and were located deep in iraq; their hardened sites required precsion guided ordinance and as I pointed out before, something like 40% of all stategic attacks were conducted by stealth bombers...of which not a single plane was lost compared to the over 50 which were lost or damaged to AA fire.

The victory cannot simply be because the iraqis were primitive (which of course they weren't). They were defeated by superior weaponry of which the stealth bombers played a crucial role. We can only guess what the losses would be if the CC network were attcked without stealth weaponry....remembering US sorties over Hanoi should be an indicator.

[William Ashley]

Old radar is outdated these days.

Today for detection an array of technologies is used.

Multi EM band detection systems that include space based satalites, ground based systems operating at all frequencies. As well as occassionally baloons (weather balloons). In the oceans you also have radar systems of a variety of types. All this stuff is fed to each other for an array system

At one point Canada had two lines of RADARS the northern line and the not as northern line (DEW - detection early warning - line). It was expensive to run and caused enviornmental damage in the areas it was deployed.

Today though a lot more blanketing occurs, in addition to satalite, every transmission/reception tower can be turned into a detection system.

One of the means of detecting stealth aircraft was to utilize cellular band sensors from cellular towers.

In reality though lasers - visual and UV and Infared are also common now. Radar is at the radio wave level (longer wave forms than infared. Then you have systems like ERP/HARP that stimulate ionized energy through HF radiowaves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program .. even visual can be done by early placed high power telescopic sensors. Say for instnace a camera spaced at 1 KM ranges --- 250,000 of these can cover an area 500sq KM http://www.ehow.com/about_5393999_types-groundbased-telescopes.html

Another means to reduce this aim is to run EW craft with the attack fighters (does canada have any?)

Of course EM band is't the only detection method --- the other means is tactile -- this includes accuostic sensors - planes travelling over the speed of sound usually have a sonic boom, and displace air.

Then there is chemical analysis... jet fuel leaves a chemical trace in the air - of course there is also heat detection.

and other methods.

Take into account that 20km up is about as high as the raptor flies (give or take) 80 km is the space barrier.

The higher an aircraft can fly the less interceptable it is. So the raptor has a cushion above the cielings of other aircraft that can't fly as high.

You need to take this into consideration when making a long term purchase on an aircraft. The f35 has a cieling stated at about 17500m

the t50 su50 is 20,000m. Meaning it can fly higher than the f35, by about 2.5km.

-----

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Russian_Sukhoi_T50_PAK-FA_Stealth_Fighter.html

It flys a little higher than the F22 raptor.

And that is what the russians have for this year.

What will they have 5 or 10 years from now?

t50 cost $100 million / unit

Oh how is this. program cost 10 billion..

Canada if it could design for the same price could launch its own program and still have cash left behind to build (if 100 m is indicative) 65 aircraft in its own domestic project - in developing its own plane at 16 billion... if not more

Then you JAM a wide area in all bands (running blind) the Jammer may get taken out

(this is why you make jamming drones... ) jammer drones -- that can fly as fast as the manned planes it is escorting.

Edited January 2, 2011 by William Ashley