Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[Saipan]

Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase for National Defence, 78% over budget.

Allan Rock's totally useless duck gun registration, almost 1000% over budget.

[Bonam]

I maintain that what we need to do is dump some money that is owed to us in a project to develop our own plane. That is to say we should build something on license here. The money Bombardier owes the fed should cover a serious and viable proposal to build what we need here in country and save money in the process.

Repeating such nonsense won't make it true.

[Moonbox]

It isn't nearly the multi role aircraft that the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are though. It is a better interceptor, though it isn't necessarily better in the air.

smallc I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to know anything about the Eurofighter at all. It's a FAR better air-to-air platform than both the F-35 and the Super Hornet, and it the Tranche 3 versions of it will be a great strike plane against ground targets. The F-35 is a far better strike craft, but it's not particularly handy in the air-to-air scenario. The F18e was designed first to serve aboard aircraft carriers and as such much of the design attention focused on making that work as opposed to a plane that didn't need to concern itself with that.

They've tested the Eurofighter vs the F18E and the Eurofighter blew it away in simulations.

If the aircraft really will cost $13B before maintenance and operations, then we should really bail and go for the F-18.

Eurofighter is my choice but the F18e is a lot better than farting away billions on a plane we don't need.

[bush_cheney2004]

....They've tested the Eurofighter vs the F18E and the Eurofighter blew it away in simulations.

Victory in simulations will not address current Eurofighter shortcomings in air-to-ground capabilities and ordnance compatibility for the primary missions encountered today. The UK is still buying F-35's despite eight eventual squadrons of "upgraded" ground attack Eurofighters.

[Queenmandy85]

Forgive me if I repeat what may have already been said, but the problem arises that in a real war, we can anticipate losing 50 to 100 aircraft a day. After two days of combat, we will have lost our air force. It is critical in war to achieve air superiority. We would be better off acquiring aircraft with fewer bells and whistles that are fast, maneuverable and less high maintenance, and buy a lot of them. As was proven in the Battle of Britain, the Arab - Isrealii 6 Day War, and the Falklands, it isn't the plane that is critical, but the pilot. A highly trained pilot in a good plane can beat a good pilot in an excellent plane.

"Big armies don't win, good ones do." Marshal Saxe

[Scotty]

Forgive me if I repeat what may have already been said, but the problem arises that in a real war, we can anticipate losing 50 to 100 aircraft a day. After two days of combat, we will have lost our air force. It is critical in war to achieve air superiority. We would be better off acquiring aircraft with fewer bells and whistles that are fast, maneuverable and less high maintenance, and buy a lot of them.

We don't have the pilots to man that many aircraft, nor the maintenance staff to maintain them, nor the budget to hire them. Are we to buy dozens of extras and just keep them in hangars for years against the possibility the ones we operate will be shot down?

"Big armies don't win, good ones do." Marshal Saxe

"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

[Moonbox]

Victory in simulations will not address current Eurofighter shortcomings in air-to-ground capabilities and ordnance compatibility for the primary missions encountered today. The UK is still buying F-35's despite eight eventual squadrons of "upgraded" ground attack Eurofighters.

They're buying the F-35 as a strike craft and for their carrier fleet. There is no VTOL or STOL Eurofighter variant.

Mature versions of the Eurofighter will be a very effective ground attack craft. It won't be as great a strike plane as the F-35, but what is Canada's airforce for in the first place? Do we typically require stealthily delivered air-to-ground ordnance on our air patrols? When was the last time we sent 65 ground attack craft overseas?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

smallc I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to know anything about the Eurofighter at all. It's a FAR better air-to-air platform than both the F-35 and the Super Hornet, and it the Tranche 3 versions of it will be a great strike plane against ground targets.

May, not will.

The F-35 is a far better strike craft, but it's not particularly handy in the air-to-air scenario. The F18e was designed first to serve aboard aircraft carriers and as such much of the design attention focused on making that work as opposed to a plane that didn't need to concern itself with that.

And yet, that's what works for us now. We need a multi role fighter. Frankly, if you're worried about cost, the Eurofighter isn't the way to go anyway.

They've tested the Eurofighter vs the F18E and the Eurofighter blew it away in simulations.

In the real world, it's all about who gets the first shot. I doubt we'll be engaged in a large air battle going forward anyway, and if we are, we won't be alone.

[Queenmandy85]

We don't have the pilots to man that many aircraft, nor the maintenance staff to maintain them, nor the budget to hire them. Are we to buy dozens of extras and just keep them in hangars for years against the possibility the ones we operate will be shot down?

"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

Love the quote. He might have been crazy but...well I guess he was just crazy.

If we can't train the pilots, what is the point of buying the aircraft? In 1945 with one-third our current population we had thousands of pilots, very good pilots. If we are unwilling to commit to defence, we should stop wasting money on symbolic gestures. If we seriously want to defend ourselves, we have to emulate the Isrealiis and the Swiss.

I confess to being an admirer of Colonel J. Sutherland Brown.

Soviet defence expenditure was based on "make it simple, make it cheap and make a lot of it."

"If you can't take a joke, you should not have a Defence Budget." Gwynne Dyer, Ideas, CBC, 1980.

[Moonbox]

May, not will.

That's a pretty pointless statement.

And yet, that's what works for us now. We need a multi role fighter. Frankly, if you're worried about cost, the Eurofighter isn't the way to go anyway.

The Super Hornet is a COMPLETELY different airframe from the normal Hornet. You realize that right? It was only called the Super Hornet because it looks similar to the legacy F-18 and it was an easier pill for Congress to swallow ($$$). It's not an updated F-18. It's a brand new plane, so that's NOT what's working for us now.

The Eurofighter IS a multi-role fighter. It was designed as such. It appears to more multi-role than the F-35. For Canada's purposes, what are we more likely to need? A strike craft that can knock out enemy ground targets without being seen, or a plane that can actually defend our airspace?

In the real world, it's all about who gets the first shot. I doubt we'll be engaged in a large air battle going forward anyway, and if we are, we won't be alone.

It's not really all about that. The kill ratio for BVR weapons is relatively low. If a long range air-to-air missile is launched at a fast and agile plane, chances are it won't hit the target. If the defending plane has superior altitude, speed and turn rate (which it likely will over the F-35), the missile hit chances are low. After an F-35 launches it WILL be detectable, and it can't climb fast enough, turn fast enough or fly fast enough to evade. Stealth aside, it's NOT a good looking plane for the air-to-air role.

The other question that I'll ask, as before, is how long do you think the F-35's stealth advantage will last?

[Queenmandy85]

Smallc wrote "In the real world, it's all about who gets the first shot. I doubt we'll be engaged in a large air battle going forward anyway, and if we are, we won't be alone."

Defence policy, unique in the range of goverment policies, must take into account all scenarios particularly the worst case ones. Don't count on anyone coming to our aid. You are correct in getting off the first shot but to achieve air superiority, you need to shoot down most, if not all, the enemy's aircraft. That is possibly in the thousands.

Based on 1945 numbers, we are capable of building the Canadian forces up to 2.25 million. We can do that but do we have the desire? If not, shut the whole thing down as a waste of money.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The other question that I'll ask, as before, is how long do you think the F-35's stealth advantage will last?

It will last long enough to give it a RCS detection advantage over current gen Eurofighters. If stealth is not so important, why is there such a scramble to get this capability for other tactical aircraft.

Detect first...shoot first.

[Queenmandy85]

There's a Romulan Cloaking device on ebay.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It will last long enough to give it a RCS detection advantage over current gen Eurofighters. If stealth is not so important, why is there such a scramble to get this capability for other tactical aircraft.

Detect first...shoot first.

Well said, that is the point after all. When all the arguments are done, the loser is the dead guy.

[Smallc]

That's a pretty pointless statement.

No, in fact it isn't. The Eurofighter is not designed for what we need, and air to ground wasn't part of it's initial mission...and it's as expensive as the F-35.

The Super Hornet is a COMPLETELY different airframe from the normal Hornet. You realize that right? It was only called the Super Hornet because it looks similar to the legacy F-18 and it was an easier pill for Congress to swallow ($$$). It's not an updated F-18. It's a brand new plane, so that's NOT what's working for us now.

So then, what is the mission of the F/A-18 A/B/C/D? Now, the F/A-18 E/F? That's what I thought. My point was that a multi role naval based fighter is working now. Why move away from that (the F-35C would be similar, and the F-35A with C modifications, which is what we will be getting, isn't that far off)?

The Eurofighter IS a multi-role fighter. It was designed as such. It appears to more multi-role than the F-35. For Canada's purposes, what are we more likely to need? A strike craft that can knock out enemy ground targets without being seen, or a plane that can actually defend our airspace?

Based on the past? A strike aircraft...not to mention one that can shoot down a Eurofighter before it's even seen.

It's not really all about that. The kill ratio for BVR weapons is relatively low. If a long range air-to-air missile is launched at a fast and agile plane, chances are it won't hit the target. If the defending plane has superior altitude, speed and turn rate (which it likely will over the F-35), the missile hit chances are low. After an F-35 launches it WILL be detectable, and it can't climb fast enough, turn fast enough or fly fast enough to evade. Stealth aside, it's NOT a good looking plane for the air-to-air role.

Based on what? Please explain how it is lacking in air to air? Do you know more than both DND or the USDoD on this? It seems to be exactly what they're looking for. The only problem is that it's expensive. It's a good plane otherwise. How do you know that it can't evade? How do you know that it won't hit the target, given today's targeting technology? You're simply guessing on all of this.

The other question that I'll ask, as before, is how long do you think the F-35's stealth advantage will last?

Long enough, it seems.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

And also (yes, I know this is an LM press release), there is evidence that the F-35 IS a very good air to air vehicle.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

[Scotty]

Love the quote. He might have been crazy but...well I guess he was just crazy.

Ruthless. He'd send million man armies at the Germans knowing they were basically untrained cannon fodder, but that he could spare them and let the Germans use up their ammo and take what casualties the cannon fodder could inflict. He wore the Germans down.

If we can't train the pilots, what is the point of buying the aircraft? In 1945 with one-third our current population we had thousands of pilots, very good pilots

Yes, but we'd been at war for 6 years at that point. If a future war lasts 6 years we have time to build more planes too.

If we are unwilling to commit to defence, we should stop wasting money on symbolic gestures. If we seriously want to defend ourselves, we have to emulate the Isrealiis and the Swiss.

The Israelis would not be able to afford the military they have were it not for the Americans helping them pay for it. As to the Swiss, we do not have the national sense of commitment to defense here. You will never get us agreeing to any kind of mandatory national service outside an emergency, and Canadians aren't willing to pay the money for it.

[Moonbox]

No, in fact it isn't. The Eurofighter is not designed for what we need, and air to ground wasn't part of it's initial mission...and it's as expensive as the F-35.

No. We've already been over this. The F-35 is expected to be almost 50% MORE expensive per plane. The mature versions of the Eurofighter (tranche 2-3 and beyond) are incorporating all the air-to-ground capabilities Canada will ever need and won't be any worse than the F-18e. It will also knock the socks off an F-18e and F-35 in the air.

So then, what is the mission of the F/A-18 A/B/C/D? Now, the F/A-18 E/F? That's what I thought. My point was that a multi role naval based fighter is working now. Why move away from that (the F-35C would be similar, and the F-35A with C modifications, which is what we will be getting, isn't that far off)?

Because you can either get more plane for the same amount of money, or the same plane for less. It's not like you can say the CF-18 was a great choice in hindsight. We would have been just as well off with the F-16, but for some reason back then it was decided we needed a 2-engined craft...

Based on the past? A strike aircraft...not to mention one that can shoot down a Eurofighter before it's even seen.

Except it wouldn't. The Eurofighter has a significantly reduced radar signature from the front and the F-35's stealth is NOT as good as people seem to think. European and Russian defense experts have concluded that it's fairly easily detected from a 25-30 degree angle and all it takes is to space your fighters out properly to intercept. Once engaged, the Eurofighter apparently enjoys a 2-1 exchange ratio against the F-35. It's NOT a good air-to air platform.

Also, what past are you talking about? The past where 20 or so CF-18's dropped conventional bombs on Yugoslavia and Iraq and then did nothing but fly air patrols for the remaining 35 years?

Based on what? Please explain how it is lacking in air to air? Do you know more than both DND or the USDoD on this? It seems to be exactly what they're looking for. The only problem is that it's expensive. It's a good plane otherwise. How do you know that it can't evade? How do you know that it won't hit the target, given today's targeting technology? You're simply guessing on all of this.

What the F-35 was SUPPOSED to be was an inexpensive and practical strike fighter that the West could field in large numbers, much like the f-16. The DND and the Pentagon I'm sure would have been happy with a $65-70M price tag. At $130M not so much.

As for how inadequate the F-35 is in the air, that's a lengthy discussion. I'll invite you to use your web skills to browse comparisons of the F-35 to the Eurofighter, Su-27, Su-35, because I'm not going to post that here. Having done that, you'll be able to see that the F-35 has a signficantly lower top speed, thrust/weight ratio and turn rate, which means once it's detected it's in trouble.

If a missile is launched against you on a head-on engagement, ideally you'd want to counter fire and then turn and start to climb as quickly as possible. Forcing a BVR missile to chase you and climb at the same time bleeds off a lot of its speed so that by the time it actually catches up to the target, it won't have the energy to maneuver properly against evasive flying.

In a head-on engagement, the F-35 won't be able to turn fast enough, fly fast enough, or climb fast enough to evade missiles the way the F-22, Eurofighter, or even a lot of legacy fighters can today, not to mention newer Russian ones.

Long enough, it seems.

Here's an interesting diddy:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/farn10-eurofighter-boasts-typh.html

I read a similar article from a Russian defense analyst saying pretty much the same thing about how the F-35 could be detected.

Here's another one that actually summarizes some of what I'm trying to say:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/eurofighter-snipes-lockheed-says.html

Edited December 28, 2010 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

And also (yes, I know this is an LM press release), there is evidence that the F-35 IS a very good air to air vehicle.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

LM was very clearly stating it had an edge against 4th generation craft, which is pretty meaningless.

[Smallc]

Ok Moonbox, you've stumbled across something that every military planner has found. Never mind that the flyaway cost of the Eurofighter is within spitting distance of the F-35 and that it lacks many of the F-35s high tech features....nope, everyone is wrong, and they;ve all been fooled.

Here is the reality. There are only two fifth generation fighters and they are both made by the same company. Thos fighters have stealth and command and control features that make them superior to every other aircraft on the planet at the moment. If we buy a plane that's almost expensive, one that doesn't have those features, then we are, quite frankly, wasting our money. The F-35 is long legged, maneuverable, and can carry a large enough payload (4 air to air weapons in stealth mode, or 10 otherwise) to get the job done that we need done. It fits best what we need it to do. The Eurofighter doesn't or we'd be buying it.

[Smallc]

And the F-35 is not expected to be 50% more. That may be the average cost, but it isn't the cost for the A.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lockheed+halves+cost/3997318/story.html

Get your facts straight.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I was right:

A leading partner of the U.S.-led JSF program has determined that the F-35 fighter-jet would cost at least $121 million per unit. The Netherlands said this marked an increase of 20 percent over the last year.

"This estimate includes the average price of the three versions of the F-35 over the entire production period, and estimated U.S. investments including ground equipment, simulators and includes initial spare parts," the Dutch Defense Ministry said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/eu_military1218_12_08.asp

As I said, our version won't cost anywhere near that. The Lockheed promised figure of $75M per aircraft doesn't seem at all implausible as our planes will be delivered when the production line is at peak capacity.

[Moonbox]

Ok Moonbox, you've stumbled across something that every military planner has found. Never mind that the flyaway cost of the Eurofighter is within spitting distance of the F-35 and that it lacks many of the F-35s high tech features....nope, everyone is wrong, and they;ve all been fooled.

If you didn't get your 'facts' straight from LM then maybe you'd know a little more about it. The only thing that is 5th generation about the F-35 is stealth. In virtually all other aspects it's rated worse than the Eurofighter. The term '5th generation' is a marketing tool, and nothing less.

Here is the reality. There are only two fifth generation fighters and they are both made by the same company. Thos fighters have stealth and command and control features that make them superior to every other aircraft on the planet at the moment.

The F-22, yes. The F-35, no. I'll have to admit I'm a little disappointed in you smallc, because you usually at least take the time to read counter-arguments, but in this case you're clearly not. I've taken the time to read your quotes and respond, and you're just glossing over things. Have you actually looked up any comparisons between the planes? Have you read anything other than LM and Canadian news releases? I didn't think so.

If we buy a plane that's almost expensive, one that doesn't have those features, then we are, quite frankly, wasting our money. The F-35 is long legged, maneuverable, and can carry a large enough payload (4 air to air weapons in stealth mode, or 10 otherwise) to get the job done that we need done. It fits best what we need it to do. The Eurofighter doesn't or we'd be buying it.

Hey, if we could get the F-35 for $60M I wouldn't be ranting here. All signs point to no, however. Your ottawa citizen article is also strangely the only one I can find anywhere that makes that claim. It appears the Americans don't even know about this yet??? Strange...

[Moonbox]

I was right:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/eu_military1218_12_08.asp

As I said, our version won't cost anywhere near that. The Lockheed promised figure of $75M per aircraft doesn't seem at all implausible as our planes will be delivered when the production line is at peak capacity.

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???

[Smallc]

Hey, if we could get the F-35 for $60M I wouldn't be ranting here. All signs point to no, however. Your ottawa citizen article is also strangely the only one I can find anywhere that makes that claim. It appears the Americans don't even know about this yet??? Strange...

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.

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 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.

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