U.S. F-35 program could be on chopping block

[Guest Derek L]

The JSF won’t be cancelled by the United States……..full stop……..The numbers might be reduced, some allies may pull out due to budget constraints or push back their purchase, but the overall program won’t be binned for two simple reasons:

1. The entire USAF, USN and USMC legacy fleets are reaching the end of their useful lifespan, and though some modernized variants of said legacy fleet are still in production, they won’t meet their front line requirements into the next decade and beyond.

2. As a former employee (Granted never worked anywhere near the program) of Boeing Integrated Defence (losers in the JSF competition) I can tell you all with the utmost certainty that Lockheed, like Boeing, has the F-35, it’s components and subsystems being built in congressional districts in almost every state.

It will be built and we will buy it.

[blueblood]

Unfortunately, like F1 cars, combat aircraft are all about the latest technology. Fighters in particular.

We bought C-17's and C-130's for that. You don't go out and buy a Toyota Corolla to race against Ferrari F-40's.

A lesson Alexander the great knew very well when he smashed his enemies,

Heck the USA gov't learned that lesson after custer's last stand. Never again!!!

Edited November 16, 2011 by blueblood

[Shwa]

Oh, please. Putin is practically the ol' Politburo all by himself. Leader for life until further notice.

Oh, please. Berlusconi was practically the Il Duce and that didn't stop us from economic deals with Italy.

[DogOnPorch]

It really is. With their excellent technology, superb fighter aircraft, tons of resources... they are loaded for bear. Heck, we could likely drop a nice, neat little pipeline right across the North Pole into their oil refineries.

They're not commies anymore, why not? I bet their MiGs do OK in the Arctic.

Different voltages, lubricants, avionics, etc would make any Russian plane very expensive for us to run. Plus, everything is in Russian...everything.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, please. Berlusconi was practically the Il Duce and that didn't stop us from economic deals with Italy.

I made no such deals.

[dre]

Unfortunately, like F1 cars, combat aircraft are all about the latest technology. Fighters in particular.

We bought C-17's and C-130's for that. You don't go out and buy a Toyota Corolla to race against Ferrari F-40's.

Unfortunately, like F1 cars, combat aircraft are all about the latest technology. Fighters in particular.

Thats a really bad way to procure anything. Im not saying you cant use new technology, you just shouldnt be an early adopter. Let someone else buy the intial production runs because they are basically beta testers. I would put this purchase on hold until theres a few hundred of these things in active service around the world, and they have flown real missions.

We bought C-17's and C-130's for that. You don't go out and buy a Toyota Corolla to race against Ferrari F-40's.

You need to look at what you actually do. A while back I did a bit of research, and the vast majority of what our airforce actually does is fly thousands of routine patrols, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. Thats going to the store and getting bread. If you use an F40 for that you accomplish absolutely nothing besides making a loaf of bread cost 10 bux instead of 3. We should purpose a platform around these missions and do most of our spending there. Those are real needs we have today.

After that I would look at whether or not we really need a JSF, and if so how many.

[Shwa]

I made no such deals.

Well easy for you to say from your shack in Montana.

[DogOnPorch]

Well easy for you to say from your shack in Montana.

Your strawman attempt to make me look like a Berlusconi supporter is as lame as painting this overblown playboy as the facist Mussolini.

[Guest Derek L]

Thats a really bad way to procure anything. Im not saying you cant use new technology, you just shouldnt be an early adopter. Let someone else buy the intial production runs because they are basically beta testers. I would put this purchase on hold until theres a few hundred of these things in active service around the world, and they have flown real missions.

You need to look at what you actually do. A while back I did a bit of research, and the vast majority of what our airforce actually does is fly thousands of routine patrols, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. Thats going to the store and getting bread. If you use an F40 for that you accomplish absolutely nothing besides making a loaf of bread cost 10 bux instead of 3. We should purpose a platform around these missions and do most of our spending there. Those are real needs we have today.

After that I would look at whether or not we really need a JSF, and if so how many.

What you purpose is kneecapping us in any future conflict with an opponent with semi modern weapons……..the Avro Canuck or the CF-101 Voodoo could still fulfill our NORAD requirements, but don’t you figure it would be put us at a significant disadvantage if we needed them in a conflict? That’s what some are indirectly proposing with picking a fourth generation fighter as opposed to JSF….A Hornet, with it’s design roots tracing back to the 70s, will look rather long in the tooth in the 2040s…….Would you have our air force fly today WW II era Spitfires?

[blueblood]

Thats a really bad way to procure anything. Im not saying you cant use new technology, you just shouldnt be an early adopter. Let someone else buy the intial production runs because they are basically beta testers. I would put this purchase on hold until theres a few hundred of these things in active service around the world, and they have flown real missions.

You need to look at what you actually do. A while back I did a bit of research, and the vast majority of what our airforce actually does is fly thousands of routine patrols, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. Thats going to the store and getting bread. If you use an F40 for that you accomplish absolutely nothing besides making a loaf of bread cost 10 bux instead of 3. We should purpose a platform around these missions and do most of our spending there. Those are real needs we have today.

After that I would look at whether or not we really need a JSF, and if so how many.

Except the future is uncertain and there could potentially not be the luxury of time to do all the beta tests. Heck it's been in planning forever. A major conflict could spring up in no time.

Again, you don't know if you have to do other things besides going to the grocery store. Better to be prepared than caught with your pants down. In your analogy, you never know if you have to make a trip to the drag strip or race track.

[Wilber]

Thats a really bad way to procure anything. Im not saying you cant use new technology, you just shouldnt be an early adopter. Let someone else buy the intial production runs because they are basically beta testers. I would put this purchase on hold until theres a few hundred of these things in active service around the world, and they have flown real missions.

If you wait until your existing aircraft are worn out, you don't have that option. Canada is not great at long range planning when it comes to re equipping its military. Catch up is more like it's normal mode. Not good enough in an era when these things take years, even decades to happen, even without the political BS that seems to accompany anything to do with military spending in this country. Anyone seen those Navy helicopters yet? It's been 18 years since Chretien canceled the EH-101's. Maybe next year they are saying now. Look at the squealing that went on over the C-17 purchase. The fact the air force got the right aircraft when it was needed is beside the point for many.

You need to look at what you actually do. A while back I did a bit of research, and the vast majority of what our airforce actually does is fly thousands of routine patrols, and be ready to shoot down rogue civilian airliners. Thats going to the store and getting bread. If you use an F40 for that you accomplish absolutely nothing besides making a loaf of bread cost 10 bux instead of 3. We should purpose a platform around these missions and do most of our spending there. Those are real needs we have today.

So what, that is the normal use of most fighter aircraft regardless of what country they belong to. If our air force's only combat roll is to shoot down airliners, a few ground to air missiles located around our major cities should do nicely.

After that I would look at whether or not we really need a JSF, and if so how many.

If we don't get the JSF or something like it, we will be 100% dependent on the US for air defense against any country equipped with modern aircraft and we will not be able to meet NATO commitments elsewhere.

[dre]

Except the future is uncertain and there could potentially not be the luxury of time to do all the beta tests. Heck it's been in planning forever. A major conflict could spring up in no time.

Again, you don't know if you have to do other things besides going to the grocery store. Better to be prepared than caught with your pants down. In your analogy, you never know if you have to make a trip to the drag strip or race track.

All thats just risk management. Thats a part of procurement as well. No entity can afford to completely isolate themselves from risk... so you gotta do your best to assess probability, and use that guide spending. And I think a reasonable person would say that the probability of these fighters ever defending Canadian airspace from another country with modern fighters is very remote. The risk is real, but so is the risk of a major asteroid hitting us. Should we spend 50 billion on asteroid defenses as well? Nuclear strikes are still a possibility as well... should we have a missile defense program?

You could probably spend 5 trillion dollars trying to negate all the potential risks out there and you still wouldnt be insured.

So you have to look at what you can afford, and then apportion that spending based on your assessment of the risks out there. We cannot afford very much... our government cannot even fund its own daily operations with the revenue stream it has. And if we defecit spend to get these planes they will cost us almost double of whats on the pricetag.

It seems to me like our government just latched onto the first shiny object that came into view.

Having said all that... this is probably an excellent plane. And even if we dont have to defend Canadian airspace against modern aircraft we have entangling alliances that might force us into wars of aggression outside our own borders. A small contingent of these planes might be appropriate once they have an established service record, and the intitial kinks ironed out.

[DogOnPorch]

Would you have our air force fly today WW II era Spitfires?

I think that's a 'yes'.

[Guest Derek L]

I think that's a 'yes'.

I’m sure my father, who flew Sea Fury’s during the Korean War, wouldn’t mind the nostalgia

[dre]

I think that's a 'yes'.

Actually its a strawman.

I would...

1. Define the budget (it should not include defecit spending)

2. Define the role and requirements (study what our airforce actually does)

3. Risk analsysis (look at contingencies)

4. Evaluate all the platforms that meet the requirements and get bids from manufacturers.

I think I would try to get a plane in the 20-40 million dollar neighborhood for all the meat and potatoes stuff. According to US defense analysts Harper is kidding himself about getting the F35 for 75 million, and that they will likely cost well over 100 million once production is complete. You could get 30 of those for about a billion dollars that will perform adequately in that capacity for the next few decades.

Then maybe buy a smaller number of JSF fighters for when our entangling alliances get us into other peoples fights.

[Smallc]

I think people are not understanding this $75M amount. That is the price per plane, but that doesn't include many things on the plane. The budget is $9B for 65 aircraft. That's the real budget.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually its a strawman.

I would...

1. Define the budget (it should not include defecit spending)

2. Define the role and requirements (study what our airforce actually does)

3. Risk analsysis (look at contingencies)

4. Evaluate all the platforms that meet the requirements and get bids from manufacturers.

There’s no other aircraft in production (With the end of the F-22 Raptor) that meet said requirements……

I think I would try to get a plane in the 20-40 million dollar neighborhood for all the meat and potatoes stuff. According to US defense analysts Harper is kidding himself about getting the F35 for 75 million, and that they will likely cost well over 100 million once production is complete. You could get 30 of those for about a billion dollars that will perform adequately in that capacity for the next few decades.

No such thing………(Waiting for Smallc)……….The Australians just leased two dozen Super Hornets (a generation behind the JSF) for ~6.5 billion……..for 24 aircraft.

Then maybe buy a smaller number of JSF fighters for when our entangling alliances get us into other peoples fights.

That ship has sailed……We should have started replacing our Hornets in the late 90s……..As I’ve suggested prior, we should have replaced half the fleet then (With a Super Hornet), then replaced the remainder later this decade, so as to spread out the purchase price and avoid block obsolescence.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

I’m sure my father, who flew Sea Fury’s during the Korean War, wouldn’t mind the nostalgia

Ah...I love the Sea Fury. What a plane!

[dre]

I think people are not understanding this $75M amount. That is the price per plane, but that doesn't include many things on the plane. The budget is $9B for 65 aircraft. That's the real budget.

Parliamentary Budget Office says the real budget will likely be 30 billion dollars when you measure total cost of ownership. The torries were claiming 14 billion then 17 billion. A US defense analyst that has studied the program says its a pipedream to expect the planes themselves will cost less then 142 million each. Not 75.

And defense analysts around the world are scratching their head and wondering what the hell we are thinking.

[Smallc]

Parliamentary Budget Office says the real budget will likely be 30 billion dollars when you measure total cost of ownership. The torries were claiming 14 billion then 17 billion. A US defense analyst that has studied the program says its a pipedream to expect the planes themselves will cost less then 142 million each. Not 75.

And defense analysts around the world are scratching their head and wondering what the hell we are thinking.

First, the $9B contract is for the purchase only, and nothing more. Second, the $16B, the only other figure I've heard of, is for the aircraft + 20 years of in service support, or half of the life of the aircraft.

142 million each would include many things that aren't included in the $75M figure. $75M will probably get us a plane plus an engine, but there is much in the way of software and hardware that isn't included in that price.

Oh, and the PBO is wrong more than right.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Ah...I love the Sea Fury. What a plane!

So does my old man……He served with and attended the funeral of Hoagy Carmichael……

[DogOnPorch]

So does my old man……He served with and attended the funeral of Hoagy Carmichael……

Very impressive. Carmichael bagged a MiG in one of those.

[dre]

First, the $9B contract is for the purchase only, and nothing more. Second, the $16B, the only other figure I've heard of, is for the aircraft + 20 years of in service support, or half of the life of the aircraft.

142 million each would include many things that aren't included in the $75M figure. $75M will probably get us a plane plus an engine, but there is much in the way of software and hardware that isn't included in that price.

Oh, and the PBO is wrong more than right.

According to this guy the PBO's estimate is by far the most realistic one.

Wheeler said Page's estimate is "by far and away" the more accurate one.

"Nobody on this earth is going to be buying F-35s in flyable condition at $75 million a copy," said Wheeler. "That's not in the cards."

The planes are still being manufactured and tested, they will have to go back to the factory for a series of upgrades and fixes that will eventually add to the final cost, Wheeler said.

He worked for more than 30 years on Capitol Hill for Republican and Democrat senators and for the U.S. General Accounting Office.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html

Edited November 16, 2011 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

For those here wanting Canada to buy Russian jets: can you name one conflict where the MiG or Sukhoi emerged victorious over Western designs? Any?

[Smallc]

All of that is simply speculation (we don't know what production models will cost, but we know they will probably cost less than the LRIP examples right now, and besides, I already explained what he said. $75M is not necessarily in flyable condition, but it is the oct of the aircraft itself. There are other costs that are either included in the purchase budget, or that will be included in the first 20 year service agreement.