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

[Guest Derek L]

because it is obsolete and the israeli version is modifiable

18-24 billion not 9 (that is 1ox the cost for an obsolete non upgradable jet -)

canadas jets dont even come with engines

also how many of those canadian companies arn't owned by american defence firms?

Uh-huh...Both the 2.75 & 9 billion dollar figures include engines, training aides, spare parts etc.......

[William Ashley]

Uh-huh...Both the 2.75 & 9 billion dollar figures include engines, training aides, spare parts etc.......

are those the prices for 55 and 5000000000098387 israeli jets? or did you sleep through 2009 - 2010

and you are trolling using an ampersand on those figures.

the only reason these things are being made is so they are flown seen and egagable 6g aircraft don't fit tbose criteria. It is anhuge waste of money if the us is just upgrading f16s

canada is runing a deficit and huge debt.. get rid of that first and just make some horrible air disoersable plauge with no vacine if push comes to shove,

what good is sovereignty for a debt enslaved state?

understand technology advances.. we now have stuff that is faster than light existing

for the 1-2 hours these things fly each day it will cost the tax payer 5-10 million dollars day in and day out for the next 20 years

Edited December 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest Derek L]

are those the prices for 55 and 5000000000098387 israeli jets? or did you sleep through 2009 - 2010

and you are trolling using an ampersand on those figures.

the only reason these things are being made is so they are flown seen and egagable 6g aircraft don't fit tbose criteria. It is anhuge waste of money if the us is just upgrading f16s

canada is runing a deficit and huge debt.. get rid of that first and just make some horrible air disoersable plauge with no vacine if push comes to shove,

what good is sovereignty for a debt enslaved state?

understand technology advances.. we now have stuff that is faster than light existing

O-K

[Bonam]

are those the prices for 55 and 5000000000098387 israeli jets? or did you sleep through 2009 - 2010

Yes, 5000000000098387 jets.

and you are trolling using an ampersand on those figures.

the only reason these things are being made is so they are flown seen and egagable 6g aircraft don't fit tbose criteria.

They flown seen egageable 6g criteria tbose made. Reason. Fit do being?

canada is runing a deficit and huge debt.. get rid of that first and just make some horrible air disoersable plauge with no vacine if push comes to shove,

I think you were already the victim of that air dispersed plague test...

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, 5000000000098387 jets.

They flown seen egageable 6g criteria tbose made. Reason. Fit do being?

I think you were already the victim of that air dispersed plague test...

[William Ashley]

Yes, 5000000000098387 jets.

They flown seen egageable 6g criteria tbose made. Reason. Fit do being?

I think you were already the victim of that air dispersed plague test...

suck it yanky

[Guest Derek L]

I honestly forget with who, But I remember a few months back having a “debate” with another forum member that thought I was full of beans when I suggested the Japanese would buy into the JSF program………..

Tokyo Chooses F-35, Local Media Report

Anyone want to “debate” me on what Aircraft the South Koreans will select?

[Keepitsimple]

So........will the CBC report anything on this? How about the opposition? The silence will be deafening.

[Guest Derek L]

So........will the CBC report anything on this? How about the opposition? The silence will be deafening.

Doubt it……..but I’m waiting for the media and in turn some posters here, to “report” on the “new’ problems associated with the JSF………(Even though I posted a few pages back, these problems are with prototypes and pre-production aircraft, that consequently, production is slowing on)………

“Brace yourself”, for news on relating to the “failure to integrate the (recycled from F-18) tail hook on the “C” version”, A fuel dump that doesn’t completely empty the tanks and problems with the pilots helmet integrated weapons cueing software.

All of which are minor fixes, and far from showstoppers

[Guest Derek L]

Doubt it……..but I’m waiting for the media and in turn some posters here, to “report” on the “new’ problems associated with the JSF………(Even though I posted a few pages back, these problems are with prototypes and pre-production aircraft, that consequently, production is slowing on)………

“Brace yourself”, for news on relating to the “failure to integrate the (recycled from F-18) tail hook on the “C” version”, A fuel dump that doesn’t completely empty the tanks and problems with the pilots helmet integrated weapons cueing software.

All of which are minor fixes, and far from showstoppers

I’m rather surprised that the Opposition parties, mainstream media amongst, it’s many critics, aren’t bringing up this:

Panetta Ends Probation of Marines’ F-35 Warplane

Or this:

Aldergrove plays key role in building new stealth fighter jets

Anyone?

Edited January 22, 2012 by Derek L

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I’m rather surprised that the Opposition parties, mainstream media amongst, it’s many critics, aren’t bringing up this:

Panetta Ends Probation of Marines’ F-35 Warplane

Or this:

Aldergrove plays key role in building new stealth fighter jets

Anyone?

I wish there was at least the perception of competition for the bidding of this contract for the RCAF. I will get laughed at for this but there is a few other aircraft that could be looked at.

[Wild Bill]

I wish there was at least the perception of competition for the bidding of this contract for the RCAF. I will get laughed at for this but there is a few other aircraft that could be looked at.

I thought we'd been through all this and found there were no other options, other than lame ass ones ineffective for Canada's needs. Still, if you think differently Jerry, perhaps you could name a few for us to kick around?

[Guest Derek L]

I wish there was at least the perception of competition for the bidding of this contract for the RCAF. I will get laughed at for this but there is a few other aircraft that could be looked at.

Why and Like what? Anything currently produced in the West is a generation older and nearly as expensive and isn't as capable...........As for Soviet Russian or Chinese aircraft, will never happen.

[Topaz]

Harper seem to be, the kind of PM that will do anything NOT to go to an open tender, not because it wrong but because he doesn't wamt to have to admit, an open bid could be the right way to go. How does he know its isn't? The F-35 have 5-10 years to go to get the problems cleared up. So what is the Royal Air Force going to fly....paper air planes that Hareper makes in his office???

[Guest Derek L]

Harper seem to be, the kind of PM that will do anything NOT to go to an open tender, not because it wrong but because he doesn't wamt to have to admit, an open bid could be the right way to go. How does he know its isn't? The F-35 have 5-10 years to go to get the problems cleared up. So what is the Royal Air Force going to fly....paper air planes that Hareper makes in his office???

As has been said numerous times, our involvement in the JSF program started under PM Chrétien. The defence industries biggest ever competition was held between Boeing and Lockheed, with Lockheed winning said contest. No other aerospace manufacturer currently or has near term plans to produce an aircraft that would compete with the F-35, hence there being zero reason to hold another unique Canadian competition.

The same was true with the C-17, Chinook and Hercules purchases………But it has been shown to be a different kettle of fish with the Fixed Winged SAR replacement and the recent developments with the shipbuilding strategy, which in both cases had/will have a competition.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I thought we'd been through all this and found there were no other options, other than lame ass ones ineffective for Canada's needs. Still, if you think differently Jerry, perhaps you could name a few for us to kick around?

Both the Russians and the Chinese have 5th gen fighters. The Americans just shut down the F22 program. We are lead to believe that our best bet is the F35, but this is all very subjective reasoning. Look folks the kind of investment required to build your own air force appears to be overwhelming. That is the perception, but not really the reality. For the kind of money we are talking about it simply makes no sense to outsource the issue.

I laugh when I hear the guesstimates of how much we think we should spend. These are very expensive toys to play with, forget about the initial cost of the aircraft think about operating costs and maintenance costs. If dollar bills are in question you might as well forget about these toys. Too bad we can't just make it a dollar bill issue instead of a national security issue. So we can't run away from the problem, we have to deal with it then. Okay, fine, so be it, BUT, that being the case we need to manage the effort and expense to the tax payer who will fund the program one way or another. That means we MUST do this in house. This kind of national effort is too sensitive to outsource, so it needs to be done here. Now after saying all of this, I suggest that the Government of Canada tap our biggest Canadian aircraft manufacturer and have them cough up an aircraft for us in lieu of those billions of dollars that the tax paying citizens of this nation gave them.

Am I dreaming? Actually no, I am just saying that we are never likely to see a dime from those loans, and why not give those folks a nice little challenge. You build us some birds, and we will actually pay for them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Am I dreaming? Actually no, I am just saying that we are never likely to see a dime from those loans, and why not give those folks a nice little challenge. You build us some birds, and we will actually pay for them.

I think you are dreaming...it is a good dream, but a dream nonetheless. Talk is cheap....design, development, and production of a 5th generation air superiority or strike fighter is not. Do this....from beginning to end:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/6507232253_bc1d8c385d_b.jpg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think you are dreaming...it is a good dream, but a dream nonetheless. Talk is cheap....design, development, and production of a 5th generation air superiority or strike fighter is not. Do this....from beginning to end:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/6507232253_bc1d8c385d_b.jpg

I did not say it would be easy BC. I just said that I think its the best way to get our money back from them. They are after all the third largest manufacturer of aircraft in the world, and they owe us big bucks. We need birds and they build them for a living. Sounds like a functional concept to me.

This would take years, that is true. It would cost lots of money, and we already paid for it. So there is simply no reason not to do this.

[Guest Derek L]

Both the Russians and the Chinese have 5th gen fighters. The Americans just shut down the F22 program. We are lead to believe that our best bet is the F35, but this is all very subjective reasoning. Look folks the kind of investment required to build your own air force appears to be overwhelming. That is the perception, but not really the reality. For the kind of money we are talking about it simply makes no sense to outsource the issue.

I laugh when I hear the guesstimates of how much we think we should spend. These are very expensive toys to play with, forget about the initial cost of the aircraft think about operating costs and maintenance costs. If dollar bills are in question you might as well forget about these toys. Too bad we can't just make it a dollar bill issue instead of a national security issue. So we can't run away from the problem, we have to deal with it then. Okay, fine, so be it, BUT, that being the case we need to manage the effort and expense to the tax payer who will fund the program one way or another. That means we MUST do this in house. This kind of national effort is too sensitive to outsource, so it needs to be done here. Now after saying all of this, I suggest that the Government of Canada tap our biggest Canadian aircraft manufacturer and have them cough up an aircraft for us in lieu of those billions of dollars that the tax paying citizens of this nation gave them.

Am I dreaming? Actually no, I am just saying that we are never likely to see a dime from those loans, and why not give those folks a nice little challenge. You build us some birds, and we will actually pay for them.

We’ve already attempted a home grown effort:

Ultimately it was either the Arrow or the rest of the military…..

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We’ve already attempted a home grown effort:

Ultimately it was either the Arrow or the rest of the military…..

When the Arrow was canceled we destroyed both the planes and to a very real extent our entire aerospace industry. That was four decades ago, and we now have nothing like the Arrow. To boot we are again looking at spending billions of tax dollars outside the country for weapons to protect the country. That is nuts.

Bombardier can and does build aircraft. They are in fact just like Avro, before the Arrow. It can be done, and that company can do it. I guess I think that we should put them to a test, build us a fighter jet or pay us back our money.

[Wild Bill]

Both the Russians and the Chinese have 5th gen fighters. The Americans just shut down the F22 program. We are lead to believe that our best bet is the F35, but this is all very subjective reasoning. Look folks the kind of investment required to build your own air force appears to be overwhelming. That is the perception, but not really the reality. For the kind of money we are talking about it simply makes no sense to outsource the issue.

Sounds simple, Jerry. Still, there are a LOT of details that frankly any one of which would make your suggestion impossible, IMHO. I've been both a buyer and a seller into the military electronics manufacturing industry in my time. I have some direct experience.

First off, Canada's military equipment has been totally integrated with designs and standards used by our NATO partners for generations. There's no way Russia or China will be able to build compatible stuff, particularly when they would often need classified information to do it. If we gave them that info, our NATO partners would consider that akin to treason and rightly so!

So that leaves having something totally independent from all our other stuff. This makes a nightmare for maintenance, repair and overhaul. It would be like having a car you're expected to maintain that has all the bolts reverse thread. Every time you had to work on it you'd need special tools, special spare parts and special education.

If you got your way, Jerry, every aircraft mechanic we have or ever will have would curse your name!

This would dramatically add to the costs. It has already been pointed out a number of times but seems to always be ignored in this thread that the F-35 has been designed for much lower cost maintenance, saving us beaucoup loonies over the life of the aircraft. A Russian or Chinese solution would blow that out of the water.

Worse yet, once you start down that path you will have irrevocably severed those NATO ties. Buying from China or Russia would necessitate close cooperation on engineering and design matters. It would be impossible for Canada to avoid becoming a security risk, as far as the other NATO countries would be concerned. They would be forced to cut off all such ties with us, making ALL our military materiel "orphans". Now we would have to replace EVERYTHING!

Also, we can't forget that the Russians, Chinese or anybody else for that matter do NOT have a plane anywhere near the performance of the F-35! So any other solution would mean an aircraft that would always be considered inferior by the public at large and those that have to fly them in particular! It would send a loud and strong message to our warriors that a political solution is more important to Canada than something that actually WORKS!

It would be like buying OLD Sea Kings in the first place!

No, given the options, I would say that if we decide not to have the F-35 we should go with NOTHING! Anything else would be just a symbolic, propaganda "solution" that would be a worthless addition to our forces in the real, modern world. We should admit that we have no intention of being a useful partner or any sort of effective player on the international scene. We could go back to having a very small cadre of brave and well trained snipers that have to bum a ride from other partners to get to the scene of any action.

I really don't see any other options! Unless you know of a plane somewhere that has the capabilities of the F-35 and is compatible with our NATO specifications, your suggestion I'm afraid seems bogus.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

I laugh when I hear the guesstimates of how much we think we should spend. These are very expensive toys to play with, forget about the initial cost of the aircraft think about operating costs and maintenance costs. If dollar bills are in question you might as well forget about these toys.

My one bigg issue with that statement is that if the sky is the limit for funding a war machine, why can't we do the same for something that can make a difference? How much do we spend on health care compared to weapons of war?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sounds simple, Jerry. Still, there are a LOT of details that frankly any one of which would make your suggestion impossible, IMHO. I've been both a buyer and a seller into the military electronics manufacturing industry in my time. I have some direct experience.

Great so you actually know how much these things cost.

First off, Canada's military equipment has been totally integrated with designs and standards used by our NATO partners for generations. There's no way Russia or China will be able to build compatible stuff, particularly when they would often need classified information to do it. If we gave them that info, our NATO partners would consider that akin to treason and rightly so!

Well, that kinda goes my way doesn't it? Since we can't really think that a non-NATO aircraft would actually be compatible within our little sphere of friends. I think there is still an outstanding software issue associated with this F35 bird that is to this day giving the procurement process some difficulty. Aside from that, and the fact that the US would not sell us F22's even if they were still making them. Lets leave the word treason out of the equation when we consider the tools that we desire for the stated purpose of national defense.

So that leaves having something totally independent from all our other stuff. This makes a nightmare for maintenance, repair and overhaul. It would be like having a car you're expected to maintain that has all the bolts reverse thread. Every time you had to work on it you'd need special tools, special spare parts and special education.

It does leave something totally independent, on this I must agree. Lets talk about this point. I firmly believe that this nation has the expertise and the need for leading edge technologies to be applied in our military infrastructure. Design something compatible you say. Hmmm, are we not building a multiple billion dollar new fleet of ships for the navy? Made in Canada aren't they? What about a number of army vehicles? Don't we have the opposite procurement process in both the Army and Navy ?

On your second point, maintenance and overhaul are still requirements for all equipment, and I agree that compatibility issues must be considered. So why not design something to take advantage of it? Why not look at it from a different point of view. What we should want to do is build on success. We know what works and we know what we want so why not do it here in Canada instead of buying the products from the USA to in effect subsidize their military industrial complex.

If you got your way, Jerry, every aircraft mechanic we have or ever will have would curse your name!

I don't think so. More like thank me for bringing an industry that we once damn near lead back home where we can create some jobs and keep some tax payers money in Canada where Fred down the street can have a job at the aircraft factory!

This would dramatically add to the costs. It has already been pointed out a number of times but seems to always be ignored in this thread that the F-35 has been designed for much lower cost maintenance, saving us beaucoup loonies over the life of the aircraft. A Russian or Chinese solution would blow that out of the water.

I will grant that some maintenance costs with the F35 are said to reduced on a per flying hour basis. That is a projection, not a fact. There is insufficient data to substantiate that claim. Besides I am advocating a Canadian plane approach.

Worse yet, once you start down that path you will have irrevocably severed those NATO ties. Buying from China or Russia would necessitate close cooperation on engineering and design matters. It would be impossible for Canada to avoid becoming a security risk, as far as the other NATO countries would be concerned. They would be forced to cut off all such ties with us, making ALL our military materiel "orphans". Now we would have to replace EVERYTHING!

Well, I guess I did not make it clear that I prefer a Canadian aircraft considering the extent of the expense and the ongoing costs of operation. Given that I do not think we pose a security threat.

Also, we can't forget that the Russians, Chinese or anybody else for that matter do NOT have a plane anywhere near the performance of the F-35! So any other solution would mean an aircraft that would always be considered inferior by the public at large and those that have to fly them in particular! It would send a loud and strong message to our warriors that a political solution is more important to Canada than something that actually WORKS!

The Russians are building the T50, India is buying 200 of them.Russian Press

The Chinese are building the J20,linked source

It would be like buying OLD Sea Kings in the first place!

We did that already. It part of the procurement process we use, it worked when we bought it and we are making it work now. Should it be replaced? Sure, but we took forever to make up our minds and in the end will we will export billions of dollars to the nation we bought that stuff from. I prefer a home made bang for our buck.

So if we don't buy an American made plane with Canadian taxpayers money,

We should admit that we have no intention of being a useful partner or any sort of effective player on the international scene. We could go back to having a very small cadre of brave and well trained snipers that have to bum a ride from other partners to get to the scene of any action.

I don't think that likely, do you?

I really don't see any other options! Unless you know of a plane somewhere that has the capabilities of the F-35 and is compatible with our NATO specifications, your suggestion I'm afraid seems bogus.

I certainly do, the F22. Lets back up the truck. We want and need the F22, but we can't have it because the Americans won't sell it to us. So you and folks like you say we should settle for second best and get the F35? I say if we can't buy what we want we are left with no option but to build it ourselves. We did it before and we can do it again. Look at the ship building contracts just announced and where the money is going. It stays at home. Look at the APC's built in Canada, that money stayed home. So why would you advocate outsourcing when you know that we are exporting our dollar bills.

[Guest Derek L]

When the Arrow was canceled we destroyed both the planes and to a very real extent our entire aerospace industry. That was four decades ago, and we now have nothing like the Arrow. To boot we are again looking at spending billions of tax dollars outside the country for weapons to protect the country. That is nuts.

Bombardier can and does build aircraft. They are in fact just like Avro, before the Arrow. It can be done, and that company can do it. I guess I think that we should put them to a test, build us a fighter jet or pay us back our money.

What lead to the cancellation of the Arrow…………..Money……………..Now why did the Arrow cost so much money per place? Lack of foreign orders, and in turn lack of economies of scale.

This isn’t a lone Canadian issue, it’s effected other first world nation’s aerospace industries also…….Look at the results of this, there is the Eurofighter, built by UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, that has been in development since the 80s, has only come into service within the last few years, and is still not fully functional. Or look at the go it alone approach taken by France’s heavily subsidized aerospace industry. They’ve had the Rafale under development also since the 80s paralleling the Eurofighter………

The end result? Two aircraft that cost as much as the JSF, but are a generation behind……….A lofty, nationalistic goal you suggest, but it’s not fiscally feasible nor wise.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What lead to the cancellation of the Arrow…………..Money……………..Now why did the Arrow cost so much money per place? Lack of foreign orders, and in turn lack of economies of scale.

This isn’t a lone Canadian issue, it’s effected other first world nation’s aerospace industries also…….Look at the results of this, there is the Eurofighter, built by UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, that has been in development since the 80s, has only come into service within the last few years, and is still not fully functional. Or look at the go it alone approach taken by France’s heavily subsidized aerospace industry. They’ve had the Rafale under development also since the 80s paralleling the Eurofighter………

The end result? Two aircraft that cost as much as the JSF, but are a generation behind……….A lofty, nationalistic goal you suggest, but it’s not fiscally feasible nor wise.

The demise of the Arrow is something well buried. Yet the analogy seems reasonable, if not misguided. I did say that I want the company that builds aircraft in Canada foot the bill. Not the taxpayer. Unlike the Avro problems, Bombardier is already diversified, but the company is still a little shakey despite the billions the tax payer has spent on it. I see this as a way to kill two birds with one stone so to speak.