F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

That's two for the Sopwith Camel.

guys, guys... you seem to have forgotten - your jingo-porn thread is over... here*:

* note: this is not a... metaphor!

[DogOnPorch]

Right...remember folks, the original F/A-18 was derived from the loser in the USA's Lightweight Fighter Program. Eagles and Tomcats were the expensive air superiority upgrade.

Yes...I even recall it being descibed in Canada as a 'budget model' like that was a Martha Stewart good thing.

[DogOnPorch]

* note: this is not a... metaphor!

Why not just say: Canada should not have an air force and move on?

[waldo]

Why not just say: Canada should not have an air force and move on?

look, really... truly... I sympathize with your want to purposely distract from the failings of JSFail; however, why don't you move on... and post in an appropriate thread? As you've purposely done in the past, you've trashed previous F-35 threads with your derail efforts. Is this, once again, your aim/intent? Why not just say so?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...I even recall it being descibed in Canada as a 'budget model' like that was a Martha Stewart good thing.

So Canada has invested billions of dollars to extend the service life of what was a "budget model" to begin with. No wonder something like the F-35A is a shock to the purse.

[DogOnPorch]

@waldo

I really don't care if you think it's on or off topic. The F-35 is a big question mark until the day it bags it first MiG or swats its first SAM site.

But, if Canada really wants to play the NATO game, we'll need the right gear. Since I already know you view the F-35 as a failure (thus pointless to 'debate it' w/ you), what aircraft do you have in mind that Canada could use for its NATO operations?

Edited June 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

So Canada has invested billions of dollars to extend the service life of what was a "budget model" to begin with. No wonder something like the F-35A is a shock to the purse.

Well waldo is ready to start uncrating the F-101s so yeah...lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well waldo is ready to start uncrating the F-101s so yeah...lol.

We can do that....I wonder if English and Francais were required on for all labels and avionics?

[DogOnPorch]

We can do that....I wonder if English and Francais were required on for all labels and avionics?

L'AIR-2A Genie? Or is that Le AIR-2A Genie?

[waldo]

@waldo

I really don't care if you think it's on or off topic.

yes, with your purposeful derailing of threads, you've made that very clear.

[DogOnPorch]

yes, with your purposeful derailing of threads, you've made that very clear.

You missed the last part there. So what aircraft...if any...do you have in mind? BC has a special on F-101s until the weekend.

Edited June 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

I certainly have no qualms in walking away from any thread that has been hijacked - I've done it several times over... your lil' enabling BC_2004 buddy can vouch for that. Is that what you're after... is that just how desperate you are to... change the channel?

[DogOnPorch]

So...no ideas on what Canada should be looking at? It's been over 100 pages of on and off yak yak yak w/o any real suggestions.

[gunrutz]

You can vomit up retarded hypbole all day if you want to. At the end of the day the constantly parroted assertion that we need to buy this plane because of Nato obligations is just not true.

It is also true that some of the people who argue against this aircraft argue from an idological position of wanting no aircraft of any kind, that sort of dishonesty makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the subject, i dont know if this aircraft will ever work for us, but i do believe we need new aircraft. It seems that some of you are arguing against more than just this particular aircraft.

[Moonbox]

But, if Canada really wants to play the NATO game, we'll need the right gear. Since I already know you view the F-35 as a failure (thus pointless to 'debate it' w/ you), what aircraft do you have in mind that Canada could use for its NATO operations?

Maybe spending ~$200M flyaway cost/unit so that we can play wack-a-mole bullying third world militaries isn't worth it. At this point, it's starting to look like everyone would be better off flying gen 4.5 aircraft, at 1/2 to 1/3 the price, for the next 15 years until someone competent comes out with a more reasonable platform. Canada's going to have to go along with whatever the US and its allies do, but the ideal situation for me would be to see the Pentagon pull the plug on this debacle.

To put this in perspective, consider the F-22. In the overall aircraft mix, the F-22 was originally conceived as the modern day F-15/F-14. It was to be the overpriced dogfighting cadillac of the sky. The F-35, on the other hand, was meant to replace the F-16 and F-18. It was to be lighter, cheaper, far more numerous and fulfill all sorts of roles. Strangely, the F-22 was cancelled because it was deemed to expensive. At $150M/unit (with very few built), the F-22 is stealthier, more agile and more deadly than the F-35, which although originally meant to be the cheaper alternative, is turning out to be far more expensive. That just gives you an idea of how far wrong the whole process went.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Canada's going to have to go along with whatever the US and its allies do, but the ideal situation for me would be to see the Pentagon pull the plug on this debacle.

Canada can do whatever the hell it wants to, but the F-35 program will not be canceled, just curtailed and stretched out. This ain't no Avro Arrow!

The F-22 program was not canceled per se....production was stopped at 187 units. The "program" continues to this day for spares and upgrades.

[Smallc]

Maybe spending ~$200M flyaway cost/unit

Or....not, since the flyway cost is still estimated to be about $75M.

[waldo]

Or....not, since the flyway cost is still estimated to be about $75M.

yes, as the Conservative partisan you are, you continue to parrot a most dated and unsubstantiated figure... do you actually believe Harper Conservatives are even so bold as to cite that figure anymore?

in any case, URFC will most certainly continue to rise as more and more design and development issues are uncovered... as more and more procurement intents are downsized and/or deferred... or, ultimately, canceled - outright! The most recent released USAF budgetary numbers follow (now even dated)... surely you can't expect Canada to pay less than the U.S. military, hey?

oh my!

When the Canadian F-35 production ready "sweet spot"... isn't so... sweet, after all!

... the ever shifting, ever extending, "sweet spot"...

at least 2021! At least!

New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35.

The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011

. The Canadian government continues to quote a figure of $75 million per F-35A. This figure is

the “unit recurring flyaway cost” (URFC) of the aircraft. However, the URFC only represents a component of the full cost Canada will pay to acquire this aircraft. The price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35A also includes additional items such as ancillary equipment (e.g. fuel tanks, weapon pylons, targeting pods), training and support equipment, tech data, publications, contractor services, initial spares, and facility construction.

Nevertheless, it is useful to ascertain how reasonable is the government’s $75 million dollar figure. The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines):

2016 – $93.38

2017 – $91.43

2018 – $83.13

2019 – $83.95

2020 – $87.36

2021 – $95.16

2022 – $87.14

2023 – $88.08

Clearly, the government continues to understate the URFC.

and from that same, just released, U.S. Pentagon Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), dated Dec. 31, 2011:

The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay.

In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81

. While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark.

[DogOnPorch]

Maybe spending ~$200M flyaway cost/unit so that we can play wack-a-mole bullying third world militaries isn't worth it. At this point, it's starting to look like everyone would be better off flying gen 4.5 aircraft, at 1/2 to 1/3 the price, for the next 15 years until someone competent comes out with a more reasonable platform. Canada's going to have to go along with whatever the US and its allies do, but the ideal situation for me would be to see the Pentagon pull the plug on this debacle.

To put this in perspective, consider the F-22. In the overall aircraft mix, the F-22 was originally conceived as the modern day F-15/F-14. It was to be the overpriced dogfighting cadillac of the sky. The F-35, on the other hand, was meant to replace the F-16 and F-18. It was to be lighter, cheaper, far more numerous and fulfill all sorts of roles. Strangely, the F-22 was cancelled because it was deemed to expensive. At $150M/unit (with very few built), the F-22 is stealthier, more agile and more deadly than the F-35, which although originally meant to be the cheaper alternative, is turning out to be far more expensive. That just gives you an idea of how far wrong the whole process went.

If you've read my posts, I've already mentioned the option of leaving NATO if 'wack-a-mole bullying third world militaries' is not the game Canada wishes to play. Then we can use Piper Cubs to defend Canada if we want. Or build that Arrow Mk II as BC suggests. There are risks to such a move but I imagine you view the current situation being in NATO as a risk, as well.

One F-22 in the right hands can probably* turn an entire squadron of Russian built machines into burning metal, btw.

*I say probably because I only have past US aircraft performances to go by.

[GostHacked]

Above 12,000' it is!

And that is the kind of issue that could ground the F-35 fleet. Pilots like to breath. The F-22 is the most advanced around, but won't fly if the pilots won't get in them. Those are expensive boat anchors.

[DogOnPorch]

And that is the kind of issue that could ground the F-35 fleet. Pilots like to breath. The F-22 is the most advanced around, but won't fly if the pilots won't get in them. Those are expensive boat anchors.

When the bugs are worked out of the system it will be far far better than carrying around a hundred kilos or so of LOX. Kaboom!

[Guest Derek L]

And that is the kind of issue that could ground the F-35 fleet. Pilots like to breath. The F-22 is the most advanced around, but won't fly if the pilots won't get in them. Those are expensive boat anchors.

The same oxygen pressure vests worn by the F-22 pilots, are also used by those pilots/aircrew flying the Super Hornet, later block Falcons and Strike Eagles and the F-35.……..The issue plagues the F-22 alone due to the higher altitudes and G-rating flown by the Raptors which cause the vests to not deflate 100% of the time…….It’s an issue with the vests, not the aircraft.

[waldo]

And that is the kind of issue that could ground the F-35 fleet.

first the USAF said it was high-altitude/speed... then in recent days, presumed to be narrowed down to... "vests".

... or, there's this guy fronting a 'toxic stealthy glue' causal link... various related articles I've read have USAF spokespersons emphasizing the stealth glue methodology is unique to the F22... that the, 'stealth glue methodology', has not been carried forward into the F-35 (notwithstanding the F-35 has failed any/all stealth related testing to date).

[GostHacked]

The same oxygen pressure vests worn by the F-22 pilots, are also used by those pilots/aircrew flying the Super Hornet, later block Falcons and Strike Eagles and the F-35.……..The issue plagues the F-22 alone due to the higher altitudes and G-rating flown by the Raptors which cause the vests to not deflate 100% of the time…….It’s an issue with the vests, not the aircraft.

The result is the same. Grounded aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

The result is the same. Grounded aircraft.

The F-22 isn't grounded though.......