Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[YEGmann]

My only question is are they being built in Canada. I would rather 16 billion going into our economy then to have a cheaper jet that make another nation rich.

Canadian companies can participate as subcontractors to Lockheed. However $9 bln. go mostly south.

Maintenance contract (remaining $7 bln) can and I hope will be partially spent here. The C-130J purchase will be probably a model.

[Army Guy]

I thought that in the contact with lockheed that for every dollar we invested lockheed would invest the same in Canada, i also thought there are some major contracts to be had in canada, not for just our portion of the contract but for the entire program......

I also like to know what other 5 th generation aircraft could have been offered, we had already decided the F-22 was out of price range....so whats left

Edited October 27, 2010 by Army Guy

[wyly]

so whats left

when was it established we needed it?...we don't need the newest super duper ray gun to kill a bug just because someone else has one, our foot will still kill it just as well.... Edited October 28, 2010 by wyly

[Alta4ever]

when was established we needed it?...we don't need to but the newest super duper ray gun to kill a bug just because someone else has one, our foot will still kill it just as well....

So by that logic why did we ever upgrade from the ARMSTRONG-WHITWORTH SISKIN?

http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?SISKIN-6

Edited October 27, 2010 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

why pay less today when you can pay more later

Because when you pay you should have the money in your pocket not pulling it out of someone elses. Also if you spend money you don't have you pay more anyway. What is the repayment timeline to pay off the bad debt - apparently up to 2015 and beyond Canada will be running atleast a 20 billion dollar year deficit - what is the interest rate on the money being borrowed to pay for these?

I'm not against defence procurements - acutually there are one of the federal government of Canada's highest priorities. But fiscal responsibility and accountable government is the #1 responsibility, and they are spending money they don't have.

I just noticed this article today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-says-cost-of-f-35-fighters-on-a-par-with-hornets/article1775575/

and it puts the pricetag back down to about $75 million - but we need to look at the price - I'm guessing jet fuel isn't included with the life - and we have to look at how many usable HOURS - when you say lifetime replacement - what is the lifespand of the aircraft --- how many flight hours are included. We look at other military aircraft -t hose limits were exceeded and the things started falling out of the skies on their own along wiht their crew

Raptors for instance have more flight hours according to this blog :

http://jineshjkviews.blogspot.com/2010/03/f-22-and-f-35-design-problems-force.html

I look at the defpro website and aI see the number 8000 = next to hours.

8000 hours of flight.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/588/

Say these things fly 5 hours a week that works out to 30 years. But how many flight hours will the things see in war or conflict - what is the use schedule on these things - is that part replacement for the service life or indefinately, - what happens in the company goes bust in 10 years? Who is offering up the warranty?

How good is that warranty if their factory or offices get bombed out?

BTW at under 80 million each I support the deal. Only because it really is needed adn there is no other aircraft ready for rollout. -- you could always hire the other contender if they can make it for less.... there is nothing stopping us contractin the other contender in the initial bid to make some jets.. but lets get serious that likely ain't gonna happen.

There are cheaper alternatives at about 3 million a jet --- but this isn't likely.. but this is the stuff places like brazil and venezuela are using. and they rate higher in military strength than canada.

There are also cheap stealth mods - including one that russia uses on its steal jets for a few million.

A low budget alternative could run under 10 million and meet canadas needs - fact is these jets are slower than the raptor allowing raptor intercept.

over mach 2 for the raptor vs mach 1.9 for the f35

You have to see the joke of the hawk holding the lightening bolts to get the joke here.

The raptor I think also has more flight hours.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DeutwC_pLZ0/SOBeP2ZQVjI/AAAAAAAAAJw/VSYH-IL3wxo/s400/Eagle.jpg

Of course seeing with 911.. is intercept really or was it possible? Is norad even up to the act - or is there something more at play.. hmm?

What isthat? I support the program but I can't stand the dependence on foreign procurement. Also I don't like the delivery timeline.

Oh the other major factor years till technological obsolecence? When are these 6th generation fighters coming out - or adequette defences against the things to turn them into shreded metal instead of lofty boats.

THe J-XX is costing China about the same apparently - maybe a little less.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/usaf-already-considering-6th-generation-fighter-requirments-7108/

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw071024_2_n.shtml

Human bodies have issues with hypersonics..

Skynet is upon us

John, where are you jon?

I think someone needs to give Harper a Giant federal credit card and charge him the interest personally same with any other federal cabinet minister who supports spending on borrowed money.

Canada is appraoching a billion dollars of debt...

buy the jets but find the money somewhere.

By the way hypersonic aircraft have been in testing publically for about 5 years now - there is genreally a 20 year development timeframe befor the things hit the shelves so we should see hypersonic x projects being serialed around 2025

This will totally make any detectable flight system obsolete unless it has faster longer range missles. Or other system.

I think that we can't really see that these things will have any use beyond 2030 in any real engagement situation that is a 20 year usable life - minus the 8 years before we can use them so that is a 12 year use life. Or about 1 billion dollars a year for the 65 aircraft.

Break out the tiedie but I can't imagine technological inadquecy by that year - that is 10 years after we start getting brain chip implants turning our brains into computers --- (intel has brian chips in store - they already exist http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=brain+chip+utah&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fbf719e6edf87023 at least 13 implants- there are also headsets that do some of the same things) fly by brainwire isn't even integrated into these things is it?

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2010/10/11/daily71-DARPA-gives-Pratt--Whitney-338M-for-new-turbine-tech.html

next generation..

current cutting edge tech Mach 5+ (mach 7 mach 8 mach 9?)

how fast is a scram jet - mach 10? how fast is a peacekeeper mach 12 no sorry mach 23? How is that.. how fast is mach 23?

24100 km/h

how fast are these planes

2327.5836 km/h

that being our fastest propellants are more than 10x as fast.. what are we defending against - what do we need to defend - what sorts of missions can Canad expect - are these stealth technologies adequette when we start using them in 8 years?

Is this able to engage a J-XX or http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/29-01-2010/111923-fifth_generation-0/

If we can bomb out enemy defence infrastructure why can't theirs? Is this to assume NATO will always have intelligence superiority over china? 7 people blew up a wall to the Pentagon after taking flight lessons and boarding a comercial plane. Something was firing high powered rounds at its walls last week. - what do you think the military of a foreign nation could do?

BTW the we don't know how many bullets thing there were, is quite disturbing, since you can plan explosives into things.. they could fire explosives onto those very hard windows.

I have no beleif the wests (*cough) the USs traditional enemies are way behind in technology - their enegineers are very very smart. There isn't much of a threshold, and China for instance has huge human resource potential. It is a general fact Canada is forced to tag along to any real US engagement because it shares the same airspace. So while they arn't Canada's enemies they are Canada's potential opposition in the event of a real US war against a developed country (the US tends to fight undeveloped countries -Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Cuba, parts of africa Other small latin american countries Iraq, Afghanistan (SEE THE EXPORT BAN LIST). It hasn't really attempted to attack a poweruful nation in a real war such as Russia or China - although it has commited acts of war against them - but they also commited acts of war against India also, and India being a commonwealth country isn't traditionally an US enemy state - heck a large chunk of NASA is Indian - and India is a counter weight to China. But this is where teh balance is.. or is it.. or are these arms these planes there so they can attack an undeveloped country cause we all know in 10 years they will not be nearly as good as they were today especially against SCO block countries - including Iran.

example: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%202009/1009fighter.aspx

It seems likely hte US procurement long term plan implenents oversight of lower cost drones (less human assisting components) in place of manned flights to address human stress threshold (or even AI preprogramed short duration missions)

v2/(2s). engagement period? The faster it is the longer it takes humans to get there... machines do not suffer the same fate.

16 g max threshold before death.

That is max accelaration of what 560 km/h / second? meaning max speed in what 10 seconds? before death or perhaps about a minute to 3 in relatively non fatal conditions or perhaps up to 10 to 12 seconds for psotive 9g actions. IN a 9 minute mission how much does 12 seconds mean in the difference between success and failure?

Edited October 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[nicky10013]

What part of investing in the developmental program before the winning of the competition was chosen do you not understand? We put money in in 1997 the winner of the contract was selected in 2001.

So, you mean to tell me the Canadian Government actively tendered bids in 1997? Why then after the contract was awarded after the competition did we not immediately buy airplanes? That's the outcome of any tendered competition. Yet, it didn't happen here. Maybe because the Canadian government only wanted access for Canadian firms to development contracts which has been said ever since this was announced. What about that do you not get?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program

As for Canadian competition, educate me, who in Canada is capable of developing and building 5th generation strike fighter aircraft?

Who says we need a Joint Strike Fighter? We may very well, we may not, but in the end that's the point of having an open tendered process. We can legitimately choose an airframe that's best for the Canadian people, rather than just letting the Americans do the purchasing for us which is what this non-sense about the JSF competition really says.

We did however get to compete to build pieces of the aircraft, and have investment monies spend in development of this aircraft in Canada. Or would you rather buy something that didn't have any of its development take place in Canada, and contribute nothing to our economy/industry.

That's exactly why we got into it. Funny enough, the Liberals invested in the project which got Canadian firms contracts. Normally, when buying new planes, manufacturers toss in goodies for firms to do domestic production and to contract out maintenance. Before you go and say that we'd be buying planes with no benefit to our economy, maybe you should ask what concessions Harper got in the contract with Lockheed Martin. Oh, that's right, he didn't even bother to ask. There's nothing of the sort in the contract which has been one of the major critiques of the contract.

Lockheed is making out like a bandit. We're paying 150 million per plane when the projected unit cost is actually 90 million, Canadian companies aren't getting any work out of it outside of the contracts recieved from the original investment of the Liberals. You know what solves these issues? An open tendered process. You know, like the ones Harper railed for when he was attacking Chretien as opposition leader.

[DogOnPorch]

USA: (enters aircraft bar with its buddy, Canada) I'll take 300 F-35s and my friend here will have 65.

Bartender: Right away, sir!

Canada: Why do you always order for me? I want to choose...

USA: OK...fair 'nuff. Tell the feller whatcha want.

Bartender: Go ahead...shoot.

Canada: Ummm...I'll have 65 F-35s.

USA: Sigh...

[waldo]

USA: (enters aircraft bar with its discriminating ally, Canada) I'll take 300 F-35s and my friend here will have 65.

Bartender: Right away, sir!

Canada: Pardon, oh presumptuous one! I do not need you to place my order based upon your (presumed) needs being automatically applied to mine.

USA: OK...fair 'nuff. Tell the feller whatcha want.

Bartender: Go ahead...shoot.

Canada: Pending the outcome of a legitimate needs analysis, coupled with a genuine open-sourced tendering, I will place my applicable order – thank you very much.

USA: Say what, brudder?...

[DogOnPorch]

USA: (enters aircraft bar with its discriminating ally, Canada) I'll take 300 F-35s and my friend here will have 65.

Bartender: Right away, sir!

Canada: Pardon, oh presumptuous one! I do not need you to place my order based upon your (presumed) needs being automatically applied to mine.

USA: OK...fair 'nuff. Tell the feller whatcha want.

Bartender: Go ahead...shoot.

Canada: Pending the outcome of a legitimate needs analysis, coupled with a genuine open-sourced tendering, I will place my applicable order – thank you very much.

USA: Say what, brudder?...

...and Canada wonders why it can't get a date.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who says we need a Joint Strike Fighter? We may very well, we may not, but in the end that's the point of having an open tendered process. We can legitimately choose an airframe that's best for the Canadian people, rather than just letting the Americans do the purchasing for us which is what this non-sense about the JSF competition really says.

Krikey....what do you think the "Joint" Strike Fighter program was all about? Spending billions on development and then buying Typhoons or Super Hornets instead?

[DogOnPorch]

Krikey....what do you think the "Joint" Strike Fighter program was all about? Spending billions on development and then buying Typhoons or Super Hornets instead?

Or a (gasp) MiG...

[Army Guy]

when was it established we needed it?...we don't need the newest super duper ray gun to kill a bug just because someone else has one, our foot will still kill it just as well....

Do you own a car ? why is that, i mean you do have 2 feet, ok i'm assuming you have 2 feet right....when do you replace your car, when it becomes to old and cost to much to keep it on the road....and when you purchase it do you look at new models or do you strictly look at the used models....

your logic does not make sense...and when you put it in context with our histroy of purchasing new equipment which is on average every 20 to 25 years.....does it not make sense now to purchase one of the best aircraft on the market knowing in 25 years we will still be flying them.....or does it make sense to purchase an aircraft that is already nearing it's productivity...such as the super hornet, when production of this aircraft will have stopped in 5 to 10 years.....i mean who is going to be dumping huge amounts of R&D funding into the F-18 so in 15 years time we will be stuck with an aged platform, with limited tech support, and no really upgrade version...why because it will all still be going into the F-35....we could have still been flying the F-104 according to your logic....it still flys can still do the job....

[dre]

USA: (enters aircraft bar with its buddy, Canada) I'll take 300 F-35s and my friend here will have 65.

Bartender: Right away, sir!

Canada: Why do you always order for me? I want to choose...

USA: OK...fair 'nuff. Tell the feller whatcha want.

Bartender: Go ahead...shoot.

Canada: Ummm...I'll have 65 F-35s.

USA: Sigh...

Its more like this...

The USA owns the aircraft bar. US and Canadian politicians get together and make deals behind the scenes and we agree that we wont patronize any other aircraft bars. Now that the US knows we arent going to serious consider options they can literally name any price. So 5 billion becomes 9 becomes 16 becomes 25.

Because of this corrupt mutual backscratching... my guess is that when the dust settles Canada will have paid the highest per unit price of ANY nation thats bought the F35 and since we were dumb enough to buy planes from the first production cycle, and plane thats never flown a single mission we will also get worse quality at that higher price.

[dre]

Do you own a car ? why is that, i mean you do have 2 feet, ok i'm assuming you have 2 feet right....when do you replace your car, when it becomes to old and cost to much to keep it on the road....and when you purchase it do you look at new models or do you strictly look at the used models....

your logic does not make sense...and when you put it in context with our histroy of purchasing new equipment which is on average every 20 to 25 years.....does it not make sense now to purchase one of the best aircraft on the market knowing in 25 years we will still be flying them.....or does it make sense to purchase an aircraft that is already nearing it's productivity...such as the super hornet, when production of this aircraft will have stopped in 5 to 10 years.....i mean who is going to be dumping huge amounts of R&D funding into the F-18 so in 15 years time we will be stuck with an aged platform, with limited tech support, and no really upgrade version...why because it will all still be going into the F-35....we could have still been flying the F-104 according to your logic....it still flys can still do the job....

Do you own a car ? why is that, i mean you do have 2 feet, ok i'm assuming you have 2 feet right....when do you replace your car, when it becomes to old and cost to much to keep it on the road....and when you purchase it do you look at new models or do you strictly look at the used models....

An intelligent car buyer will never buy a vehicle in the first production run. Theyll buy a model thats 3 or 4 years old because the quality is much better. The vehicle has been well used by that time, the design has been tweaked to eliminate problems, and improved.

And an intelligent car buy will look at what he needs his car for and buy a cost effective vehicle thats suitable for that purpose. They arent going to buy a Ferrari F40 if all they do is drive down town to get groceries.

And thats exactly what Canada is doing. Even though we know that 90% of what our airforce does is fly routine missions over Canada, and stand by to shoot down rogue airliners, we are going to buy the most expensive plane possible, and one of the most expensive to maintain.

So in the end... all we will have done is made it much more expensive to fly those patrols. Were driving to the store in our Ferrari F40 to get bread and cheese.

[DogOnPorch]

Its more like this...

The USA owns the aircraft bar. US and Canadian politicians get together and make deals behind the scenes and we agree that we wont patronize any other aircraft bars. Now that the US knows we arent going to serious consider options they can literally name any price. So 5 billion becomes 9 becomes 16 becomes 25.

Because of this corrupt mutual backscratching... my guess is that when the dust settles Canada will have paid the highest per unit price of ANY nation thats bought the F35 and since we were dumb enough to buy planes from the first production cycle, and plane thats never flown a single mission we will also get worse quality at that higher price.

Well...rustle us up some non-imperialist, non-corrupt MiGs, comrade. Chop, chop.

Edited October 28, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

..... and since we were dumb enough to buy planes from the first production cycle, and plane thats never flown a single mission we will also get worse quality at that higher price.

Hmmm....sound just like....errr...ummm....CF-188 procurement! LOFL!

[dre]

Well...rustle us up some non-imperialist, non-corrupt MiGs, commrade. Chop, chop.

Id rather just use common sense business practices. The very worst thing you can do as part of a procurment process is let a vendor think you arent considering other options.

Even if we pretty much had decided we wanted F35's we should have played those cards tighter and not let anyone else know that. We should say publically that we are accepting bids from a number of different sources, on a number of different platforms.

Instead... we are heading into the car dealer ship and telling the salesman... "I MUST have THIS car!" How much is it? Your average highschool student could tell you why thats a bad idea.

[DogOnPorch]

Just 'cause a VW Beetle is economic and reliable doesn't mean you use it to hunt moose.

Edited October 29, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Id rather just use common sense business practices. The very worst thing you can do as part of a procurment process is let a vendor think you arent considering other options.

....and Canada ends up paying twice. More Iltis jeeps please!

[Wilber]

An intelligent car buyer will never buy a vehicle in the first production run. Theyll buy a model thats 3 or 4 years old because the quality is much better. The vehicle has been well used by that time, the design has been tweaked to eliminate problems, and improved.

Combat is a competition, the loser doesn't get to play again. You will never win a race with a 4 year old race car when everyone else is using this years model.

[wyly]

Combat is a competition, the loser doesn't get to play again. You will never win a race with a 4 year old race car when everyone else is using this years model.

never watch formula one? sometimes the new models are flops...

"The 50-year-old F–104A-19 can match the F-22’s supersonic cruise radius"... not saying the F-104 can match the F22 but newer is not always better...

Edited October 29, 2010 by wyly

[Wilber]

never watch formula one? sometimes the new models are flops...

"The 50-year-old F104A-19 can match the F-22s supersonic cruise radius"... not saying the F-104 can match the F22 but newer is not always better...

Sometimes some of them are but old models don't win. F1 is the most high tech form of auto racing their is. Regardless if your design is a dud, if you don't have the latest technology you don't have a hope. I'm sure you can find a bunch of 104's in the desert, go for it. Cherry picking capabilities is a mugs game. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a fly off between the F-35 and the Tornado but it would have to include all the missions we will require of an aircraft, not just air to air.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Wilber

[William Ashley]

BTW it isn't difficult to build a 5th generational fighter - what is difficult is the cost of it. Personally I think I could build this for less - but the licensing is the problem because of stupid IP laws. The reason why "companies can get in on it" is because they are "allowed in" because US companies own all the patents.(or many)

If we ignored patents altogether we would be at a much higher technological level - most patents are owned by the major companies .. where some newer patents exist those companies are often bought out.

The R&D thus licensing for patents is where the real cost is. Even though R&D goes in now those companies not only make the money on this - but anything that is made on this example any future variants.

Material costs have very little play into it.. the cost comes in when you look at tooling staffing etc.. because you have to build up the capability - part of the reason why some countries have a harder time running their own program s is that htey have to source equipment from other countries - and sometimes there are high technology export restrictions meaning htey have to make their own - and if there are patents outstanding they have to have them - or the patent holder can set their own price - otherwise royalties have to be paid.

Some newer materials go down in cost the higher the production levels are - (due perhaps to investment into tooling infrastructure) They want to make up for their investment into facilities and tooling. Big companies that own their patents, and already have facilities set up and tooled and trained staff - really are just price gouging.

The big loss in Aero and domestic aerospace is that it leaves not only a skills legacy but the potential for an infrastructure legacy. This is why domestic production is important on a national level. Patents facilities, tooling, manpower -it that there is the military industrial complex - something big in the US and that is why Canada pays twice as much as Sweden for a lower military ranking it buys at retail not factory outlet. Sweden less than 1/3rd of Canada's size pays only 5 billion per year and has its own product.

Edited October 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Sometimes some of them are but old models don't win. F1 is the most high tech form of auto racing their is. Regardless if your design is a dud, if you don't have the latest technology you don't have a hope. I'm sure you can find a bunch of 104's in the desert, go for it. Cherry picking capabilities is a mugs game. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a fly off between the F-35 and the Tornado but it would have to include all the missions we will require of an aircraft, not just air to air.

Tornado??? we're talking about the Typhoon here, how are you going to have a fly off when the F35 isn't even ready for production...and yes the Typhoon will do all the missions required it's a multi-role aircraft not only a air to air...from every acount I can find and I've searched through many the Typhoon is a far better plane than the F35 will be, it appears to be as good if not better than the F22, it has gone up against the F22 but reports of the meetings are being supressed for security reasons, and no doubt political as well it's a half to a third less money than the F22...what I have found is the Typhoon can detect the F22 at range with IR detection which nulifies the stealth, the F35's stealth is not as good as the F22's

[wyly]

The big loss in Aero and domestic aerospace is that it leaves not only a skills legacy but the potential for an infrastructure legacy. This is why domestic production is important on a national level. Patents facilities, tooling, manpower -it that there is the military industrial complex - something big in the US and that is why Canada pays twice as much as Sweden for a lower military ranking it buys at retail not factory outlet. Sweden less than 1/3rd of Canada's size pays only 5 billion per year and has its own product.

Sweden is only 400,000 sq km compared to Canada's nearly 10,000,000...so far smaller than 1/3 our size...which allows it more cash for R&d, our infrastructure costs because of the size of our country are enormous, being small/compact has it's benefits...