F35 procurement now on CPAC

[Guest Derek L]

I will admit I haven't read many books about it, but have watched probably five or so documentaries on WWII. And in everyone I can remember, a military type, politician, historian or expert have all said that if Hitler had kept pressing on to England when the Germans hit Dunkirk he probably would have conquered the British. They were is such disarray. The blitz in fact both gave them time to regroup, re-arm and on top of that it really set the British mental tone.

Or so I have been told.

It’s doubtful he would have been successful, but he did invade Crete (suffered appalling casualties doing it mind you) with paratroopers. Perhaps if enough paratroopers concentrated (and survived) on one or two ports in southern England, the Luftwaffe maintained it’s pressure on RAF bases in the south as opposed to bombing cities (Hey another mistake, Hitler’s ego forcing him to respond to British airstrikes on Berlin, likely cost him the Battle of Britain), and if the Nazis were able to peace off the IRA to run interference, you never know.

[Moonbox]

Why don’t the F-4s count? Some of them are newer than our current CF-18s. Does that mean our CF-18s “don’t count”? Do the Japanese not plan to replace them?

Because it's a 50 year old airframe and costs about 1/15th of what a CF-18 does and about 1/60th of what an F-35 does. If Great Britain was still flying 25000 Spitfires would you still consider them a potent air threat or would you realize that they'd be shot down in droves with no chance of retaliation by more modern fighters?

You can't air forces by number of units.

It means the United States is drawing down it’s presence in South Korea, at the same time the threat to South Koreans has not diminished. Also, over the last couple of decades, the Korean economy is expanding by leaps and bounds. This trend is evident, by the South Korean desire to modernize and expand their military.

South Korea is modernizing their fleet with updated 4th generation craft. If they wanted to triple or quadruple their air force budget, then maybe they'll spend the money on the F-35's because that's what they'd need. Something tells me that's not likely.

The Chinese are building 5th generation stealth fighters, the Japanese and Koreans interested in JSF. The Chinese are building new subs, the Japanese and Koreans doing likewise etc etc etc

Japan and Korea can't match Chinese spending. The best they can do is make sure they're a sharp thorn.

[Guest Derek L]

Because it's a 50 year old airframe and costs about 1/15th of what a CF-18 does and about 1/60th of what an F-35 does. If Great Britain was still flying 25000 Spitfires would you still consider them a potent air threat or would you realize that they'd be shot down in droves with no chance of retaliation by more modern fighters?

You can't air forces by number of units.

And, as I said, the Japanese are replacing the Phantoms

South Korea is modernizing their fleet with updated 4th generation craft. If they wanted to triple or quadruple their air force budget, then maybe they'll spend the money on the F-35's because that's what they'd need. Something tells me that's not likely.

Yes, and as I said, the F-15K is replacing the oldest of their fleet. Procurement lead times take years, if not decades. If we sign the contract in ~2017, our orders likely won’t be fully delivered in till the early 2020s.

The problem with Canadian defense procurement is we wait until rust-out has occurred. What we should have done, was replace half the Hornet fleet in the late 90s/early 2000s with a Super Hornet order tacked onto the initial USN order, then replaced the rest of the fleet with JSF later this decade, then replace the Super Hornets in the late 2020s with either JSF or a sixth generation aircraft/UCAV.

Same with the navy and army.

[Moonbox]

And, as I said, the Japanese are replacing the Phantoms

The Japanese aren't replacing 125 Phantoms with 125 F-35's. They don't have the budget for it, particularly after the F-2 program which cost them about $10B for the whole order.

[Guest Derek L]

The Japanese aren't replacing 125 Phantoms with 125 F-35's. They don't have the budget for it, particularly after the F-2 program which cost them about $10B for the whole order.

Really?

In a meeting with his Japanese counterpart, the U.S. defense secretary suggested "Japan consider three U.S. planes to upgrade their fleet," the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F/A-18 Hornet, now a product of Boeing and Northrop Grumman, and Boeing's F-15 Eagle.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/18/US-pitches-jets-to-Japan/UPI-42461295379253/#ixzz1KyXfQ6Bs

Japan has hoped to acquire the F-22 stealth fighter, manufactured by Lockheed and Boeing, to replace its aging F-4Ej fighter jets, which were made by McDonnell Douglas. The United States, however, has halted production of the model, as guiding laws bar the export of the plane.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/18/US-pitches-jets-to-Japan/UPI-42461295379253/#ixzz1KyY1UqG3

[Moonbox]

Really?

Go back to the numbers Derek. I keep telling you that. They don't have the budget for more. Nothing in your citations suggested otherwise.

[Guest Derek L]

Go back to the numbers Derek. I keep telling you that. They don't have the budget for more. Nothing in your citations suggested otherwise.

If you’re in the market for a Corvette, and you’ve stated as much to the dealer, and the dealer would like to see you in that Corvette, why would you waste your own time and that of the dealer if you can’t afford it?

I guess the Japanese could be the nation state equivalent of a twenty year old looking for a joyride.

[Moonbox]

If you’re in the market for a Corvette, and you’ve stated as much to the dealer, and the dealer would like to see you in that Corvette, why would you waste your own time and that of the dealer if you can’t afford it?

I guess the Japanese could be the nation state equivalent of a twenty year old looking for a joyride.

The Japanese will likely buy some F-35's. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your scenario where they buy 6x as many as Canada does when they already have 100 brand new 100 million dollar fighters and their defense budget isn't a heck of a lot bigger than Canada's.

[Guest Derek L]

The Japanese will likely buy some F-35's. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your scenario where they buy 6x as many as Canada does when they already have 100 brand new 100 million dollar fighters and their defense budget isn't a heck of a lot bigger than Canada's.

And I still contend that they have stated an obvious need for such aircraft, and unlike us, they have three possible direct threats to their country, all within a few hours flight time.

If 65 aircraft is enough for our air force to equip two gun squadrons and one training squadron (plus a small reserve) to maintain our commitments to NORAD and allow 6-8 aircraft to be deployed on an overseas mission, one can see Japans need are a great deal larger.

For example, a US aircraft carrier needs a squadron of 12-15 aircraft to maintain an element of two aircraft on a 24/7 combat air patrol. So using that ratio, for the Japanese to maintain 12 aircraft available over their entire nation that would put us in the range of 144-180 aircraft. This doesnt include aircraft for training, a counterstrike (if needed), foreign deployments (Like RIMPAC) or an increase to that 12 aircraft figure during times of heightened tension (North Korean missile testing or the recent dispute with the Chicomm fishing boat)

Now all these figures are also based on the assumption that there will always be a very large deterrence factor provided by the United States Navy, Air force and Marine Corps units based in Japan. If, as its being talked about, the American forces are moved from Japan to Guam, this will throw Japanese defense needs out the window.

And the same situation also grips South Korea.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Derek L

[Moonbox]

And I still contend that they have stated an obvious need for such aircraft, and unlike us, they have three possible direct threats to their country, all within a few hours flight time.

If 65 aircraft is enough for our air force to equip two gun squadrons and one training squadron (plus a small reserve) to maintain our commitments to NORAD and allow 6-8 aircraft to be deployed on an overseas mission, one can see Japan’s need are a great deal larger.

Dude. Look at the numbers. The money. It ALWAYS boils down to money. You can list all of the neat numbers you want but they make not a token of difference unless the money is there.

Japan's GDP is about 3x what ours is. Their military spending is a little more than 2x what ours is.

Japan JUST bought 100 aircraft at $100M/unit that their citizens are pissed about already. They JUST had a catastrophic disaster that will take them years to recover from.

Do the math. Please. They don't have the cash for 400 F-35's and there's been ZERO evidence that they're looking to expand their airforce spending by 400%. One last time: Go over the numbers and the money. It is not there.

[Guest Derek L]

Dude. Look at the numbers. The money. It ALWAYS boils down to money. You can list all of the neat numbers you want but they make not a token of difference unless the money is there.

Japan's GDP is about 3x what ours is. Their military spending is a little more than 2x what ours is.

Japan JUST bought 100 aircraft at $100M/unit that their citizens are pissed about already. They JUST had a catastrophic disaster that will take them years to recover from.

Do the math. Please. They don't have the cash for 400 F-35's and there's been ZERO evidence that they're looking to expand their airforce spending by 400%. One last time: Go over the numbers and the money. It is not there.

Do you understand how amortization works ? If our planned purchase is 65 for ~29 billion over thirty years, that’s just under 1 billion a year right? During this time, we’ll also have to fund replacements for our navy, which will likely be double the cost of the jets, SAR replacement, APC/IFV replacement, Aurora MPA replacement etc, on a budget half of the Japanese. This is our own fault for allowing rust-out to have occurred.

Now using the 6x Japanese purchase, that’s roughly ~ 175 billion or 5.5-6 billion over 30 years on a budget ~ double ours…if halved to equal our budget….it will roughly be what we’ll be paying for the fighters and frigates alone.

A modern, first rate military is expensive. The Japanese will either choose to defend themselves (which I’ve yet to see evidence saying they won’t) or they’ll choose not to.

There's the numbers, I've provided a link stating the Japanese we're intrested in an aircraft (F-22) more expensive then JSF, which they felt would suit their requirments, but the US government won't allow to be exported.

Now if I've misunderstood Japanese intentions, and they plan to beat their swords into ploughshares, I would appricate some sort of reference.

[RNG]

@ Derek L. You seem to know about this stuff. Several of my American friends criticized the F-22 very much, saying it is overpriced and an inferior weapons platform. Your opinion?

[Bonam]

@ Derek L. You seem to know about this stuff. Several of my American friends criticized the F-22 very much, saying it is overpriced and an inferior weapons platform. Your opinion?

The F-22 is indeed expensive, and has more complex logistics compared to the F-35, but it is the most advanced, most capable, air to air fighter in existence, drastically outclassing any and all other aircraft in that role. A "weapons platform" is an ambiguous term but suggests something more along the lines of a strike aircraft, and indeed, the F-22 is "inferior" in that role, since it was not designed with that as a priority.

The F-22 is a fighter you would want to get only if you want to be ready to fight other advanced air forces in an air superiority campaign.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

@ Derek L. You seem to know about this stuff. Several of my American friends criticized the F-22 very much, saying it is overpriced and an inferior weapons platform. Your opinion?

It's overpriced to a degree, but thats more to the production being cut short, so the unit price increases.

Also, it is lacking in air to ground, but in fairness, that was never it's intended role......If enough money was thrown at it, there's no real reason it couldn't be made comparable to what the F-15E strike Eagle is compared to the rest of Eagle fleet.

[RNG]

It appears from our recent history that air to ground is maybe more "in demand" for the type of actions our military take on, so the F-22 wouldn't be in the running for our airforce.

[bush_cheney2004]

It appears from our recent history that air to ground is maybe more "in demand" for the type of actions our military take on, so the F-22 wouldn't be in the running for our airforce.

Correct, but the F-22 Raptor is not available to Canada or any other nation by US federal law. It cannot be exported.

[Bonam]

Correct, but the F-22 Raptor is not available to Canada or any other nation by US federal law. It cannot be exported.

True, but laws can be changed, even in the lumbering American bureaucracy. Much of the reason for the law was that the US did not want the F-22's advanced technology to potentially fall into the wrong hands. But much of the same technology is used in the F-35, and that is being exported to many nations. That gets rid of much of the reason for not wanting to export the F-22. Furthermore, US politicians are feverishly trying to find ways reduce its deficit, and deals to export the F-22 could net the US government tens of billions of dollars.

[cybercoma]

I could not possibly be any more disinterested in the discussion about fighter jet specs.

You guys wholly missed the point.

Even if one does agree with the replacement of the fighter jets, as well as the choice of jet. None of that matters when the government did not have an open tender bidding process, per law, and when they flatly refused to release the details of their deal to parliament, to whom they are fiscally responsible as a matter of confidence.

Regardless of whether it was a good or bad decisions to buy those particular fighter jets, the point is that I don't want a government to have the power to make fiscal decisions unilaterally without an open tender and lying to parliament. For them not to be punished for this absolutely deplorable contempt for parliamentary procedure, the laws, and democracy would be a shame.

Edited May 2, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Furthermore, US politicians are feverishly trying to find ways reduce its deficit, and deals to export the F-22 could net the US government tens of billions of dollars.

Ironically, it is also because the US wants more FMS numbers for the F-35 that F-22 export has not been forthcoming.

...The prime reason F-22 is not being considered for export is less about a law or technology transfer and more about money. The over $300 billion dollar F-35 program is too important to let anything else soak off potential sales. The article implies that an F-35 would be in service before an F-22 could be setup for export.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2894.html

Edited May 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

I could not possibly be any more disinterested in the discussion about fighter jet specs.

You guys wholly missed the point.

Even if one does agree with the replacement of the fighter jets, as well as the choice of jet. None of that matters when the government did not have an open tender bidding process, per law, and when they flatly refused to release the details of their deal to parliament, to whom they are fiscally responsible as a matter of confidence.

Regardless of whether it was a good or bad decisions to buy those particular fighter jets, the point is that I don't want a government to have the power to make fiscal decisions unilaterally without an open tender and lying to parliament. For them not to be punished for this absolutely deplorable contempt for parliamentary procedure, the laws, and democracy would be a shame.

No contracts have been signed yet, not for another couple years

[cybercoma]

There is clearly a deal, if what people are saying about the cancellation penalty is true.

[wyly]

There is clearly a deal, if what people are saying about the cancellation penalty is true.

you bet there is you don't buy something like this without an agreement to terms, there is a contract the conservatives refused to produce it...

[Guest Derek L]

There is clearly a deal, if what people are saying about the cancellation penalty is true.

There's no fincial cancellation penalty that would have to be paid by the government, with that said, there would be a huge penalty put on the Canadian aerospace industry from loss of work. Also, there would be a penalty paid by the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, whom would be forced to continue flying an older aircraft or a inferior aircraft picked for political reasons.

There is no deal signed to purchase the F-35, the Liberal government ten years ago bought into the project so Canadian industry could place bids. A deal won’t be signed until the 2015-2017 timeframe.

[Moonbox]

Do you understand how amortization works ? If our planned purchase is 65 for ~29 billion over thirty years, that’s just under 1 billion a year right? During this time, we’ll also have to fund replacements for our navy, which will likely be double the cost of the jets, SAR replacement, APC/IFV replacement, Aurora MPA replacement etc, on a budget half of the Japanese. This is our own fault for allowing rust-out to have occurred.

Please don't speak to me about numbers or amortization. I work with those sorts of numbers for a living and would dance circles around most people in that regard. Every piece of military equipment in service has a cost amortization. It really has nothing to do with our argument either.

Now using the 6x Japanese purchase, that’s roughly ~ 175 billion or 5.5-6 billion over 30 years on a budget ~ double ours…if halved to equal our budget….it will roughly be what we’ll be paying for the fighters and frigates alone.

This is what we call 'mental gymnastics'. You've presented a bunch of numbers to us that seem really interesting, but mean absolutely nothing. What does Canada's replacement cost of their navy have to do with what a Japanese fighter purchase will be? Japan has a navy 10x the size of ours, which will also need to be replaced, and takes up a large part of their military budget.

There's the numbers, I've provided a link stating the Japanese we're intrested in an aircraft (F-22) more expensive then JSF, which they felt would suit their requirments, but the US government won't allow to be exported.

Again, the Japanese are going to buy more fighters. That's a given. Nowhere is there any indication of an intention to purchase 400 F-35's, or F-22's for that matter. You're making a case for the red herring award.

[Guest Derek L]

you bet there is you don't buy something like this without an agreement to terms, there is a contract the conservatives refused to produce it...

All government tenders go through this site:

http://www.merx.com/English/Nonmember.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=1&hcode=SgbREnHhjXN%2fEwVH2mi7ow%3d%3d

You'll find everthing from CF-18 spares, computer chairs, submarine parts to snow blowers.......