F-35 Purchase

[Mr.Canada]

We(Canada) need new jets. I'd like for Canada to look at some cheaper yet still effective options. I don't want to buy jets that are going to be obsolete 10 years after receiving them. I don't want Canada t o buy jets that will have to be retrofitted 5 years after purchase either.

I don't want a replay of the Chopper fiasco that saw us using Sea Kings well after we could've had replacements but didn't due to another party playing politics.

[Moonbox]

But do you recognize that this is a new accounting method? Unlike previous aircraft which included a 30 year lifespan, this method uses 50 years and estimates what inflation will be out to the 2060s…………

The estimates were bumped up by 50%. From $1T to $1.5T. What sort of logic are you using that accepts that a 50% overall program cost doesn't translate into a more expensive plane? There have been cost overruns and deadlines missed over and over and over again, and yet LM and people like you are STILL insisting that the end price of the plane doesn't really change...

[Guest Derek L]

The estimates were bumped up by 50%. From $1T to $1.5T. What sort of logic are you using that accepts that a 50% overall program cost doesn't translate into a more expensive plane? There have been cost overruns and deadlines missed over and over and over again, and yet LM and people like you are STILL insisting that the end price of the plane doesn't really change...

Simple, as I said, the accounting method used prior for DoD projects didn’t include an estimate for a 50 year life of the program or have to estimate the world economy 50 years into the future to estimate inflation……….I’m sure we could get the program up to 3 trillion if we assumed it would still be in service in the year 2112.………

To put this in perspective go back to 1962, and for argument sake use the F-4 Phantom………In 1962 could you honestly predict accurately world events that would effect the economy out to 2012? As such, how would you predict the total life costs of the entire F-4 Phantom program, an aircraft used my numerous militaries, for decades (And still in service with several air forces)?

[Moonbox]

Irrelevant. When was the accounting method decided on?

If they told us the plane would be $75M, and then it turned out to be $133M, the only reason the accounting time span would matter is if it changed somewhere in between. Is that the case? From what I understand, they've had a 50 year time horizon for this program for many years now.

Unless you can somehow show us that they decided to change the accounting time frame recently, the numbers would dictate that a 50% increase in overall program costs translates into a significantly increased per unit cost, given the same estimated delivery orders.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Moonbox

[login]

We(Canada) need new jets. I'd like for Canada to look at some cheaper yet still effective options. I don't want to buy jets that are going to be obsolete 10 years after receiving them. I don't want Canada t o buy jets that will have to be retrofitted 5 years after purchase either.

I don't want a replay of the Chopper fiasco that saw us using Sea Kings well after we could've had replacements but didn't due to another party playing politics.

http://rafalenews.bl...and-behong.html

f3 is only a few years out now 2008.

Only France uses these things.

Note to derek on his earlier comments about joint targetting.

Damocles-XF

also these things have beyond visual targetting that only the mig 29/30 uses

target "Virtualization" is not difficult to emulate.

Edited November 3, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Irrelevant. When was the accounting method decided on?

If they told us the plane would be $75M, and then it turned out to be $133M, the only reason the accounting time span would matter is if it changed somewhere in between. Is that the case? From what I understand, they've had a 50 year time horizon for this program for many years now.

Unless you can somehow show us that they decided to change the accounting time frame recently, the numbers would dictate that a 50% increase in overall program costs translates into a significantly increased per unit cost, given the same estimated delivery orders.

Irrelevant? No, you’re simply shifting the goal posts by comparing a full production figure (75 million), a figure that will include orders in the thousands, to that of the previous pre production figure (133 million), a figure that included an order that you could count with your fingers and toes……….

As to the accounting method switch, that started in the later part of the Bush Administration (Before Rumsfield left) and if applied to the current US legacy fleet, the very aircraft the F-35 will replace, over a 50 year span that total will approach 4 trillion……….Along the way, they decided to increase the number of bases the F-35 would be based at from about 30 to approaching 50, they doubled the amount of support equipment needed to sustain the aircraft when contrasted with the current legacy fleet (Which is rather rich considering the single engine F-35 will be replacing numerous twin engine aircraft, but that’s not reflected), and most importantly of al, unlike any other previous aircraft program, they’ve included “unknown future upgrades” and pilot training………….To say nothing of their forward crystal ball looking rates of “estimated inflation” out to the 2060s……..

As for my source, anyone of the zillions of GAO links Waldo has provided.

[Guest Derek L]

http://rafalenews.bl...and-behong.html

f3 is only a few years out now 2008.

Only France uses these things.

Note to derek on his earlier comments about joint targetting.

Damocles-XF

also these things have beyond visual targetting that only the mig 29/30 uses

target "Virtualization" is not difficult to emulate.

From Libya last year (Note the centerline position of the Super Etendard and no “pods” under the Riff-Raffs).:

[login]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWnjpw1jBE

Now ask, why is Canada not capable of this? Edited November 3, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5hFG-hsb6A

Your point? Here's mine:

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/autres-operations/operation-harmattan-libye/actualites/libye-point-de-situation-operation-harmattan-n-6

Quatre missions d’interdiction ont été conduites par deux Mirage 2000D et quatre Rafale de l’armée de l’Air, et par deux patrouilles mixte Rafale / Super-Etendard modernisés de la Marine. Ces avions disposaient de missiles air-sol A2SM et GBU 12 ainsi que de missiles air-air Mica.

[Mr.Canada]

http://rafalenews.bl...and-behong.html

f3 is only a few years out now 2008.

Impressive plane. Are we looking at it as a viable option? If Canada isn't then I would like to know why they aren't.

The Tories are starting to piss me off or rather the PM is. I know that some things are national security but surely not everything is. He would spare himself a lot of headaches if he just told us one way or the other.

I wonder if we're going with ah American plane for underhanded reasons.

[login]

Your point? Here's mine:

http://www.defense.g...n-harmattan-n-6

The point is, it is mission capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUYztyJTtc&feature=related

The future...

The F35's are not dependable as a sole source platform because they are foreign controlled, how can you commit to buy an aircraft that isn't even battle tested?

Why is canada unable to leverage Canadian aerospace companies into creation of similiar products for domestic use.

Edited November 3, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

The point is, it is mission capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUYztyJTtc&feature=related

The future...

The F35's are not dependable as a sole source platform because they are foreign patrolled, how can you commit to buy an aircraft that isn't even battle tested?

The same reason we committed to the Hornet and the Americans (and dozens of other nations) to the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 etc.……..The Europeans to the Eurofighter and the French to the Rafale……….

[Smallc]

The Tories are starting to piss me off or rather the PM is.

Not father Harper!!!

[login]

http://www.scienceda...90508135020.htm

Hopefully you can understand that you can pay a lot or you can pay less for the same capabilities.

computational capacities, and energy, sensors which are based upon bidirectional quantum photonic properties is another hole in f35 stealth, much like localized mass sensors.

Light is faster than mach 2, and high energy can pass through solid objects.

Much like radiowaves started as a communication device later employed in radar applications, it is only a matter of time before quantum communications facilitates mass roll out of quatum detection technologies.

I'm someone who still supports acquistion for NORAD purposes, but I think that the deal needs to be on some basic principles.

1. It comes out of the existing defence budget.

2. It doesn't bank on future budgets for paying out its future costs.

3. The money in the defence budget doesn't come from a deficit based budget paid for with borrowed money that needs to be paid back in the future.

Edited November 3, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

Not father Harper!!!

Lol, that stuff is in jest to lighten up the forum. Who in their right mind would actually think like that?

[Guest Derek L]

And an interview with the first Canadian F-35 pilot:

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Flying-the-F-35-CDR-Oct-2012.pdf

An interesting part:

...Flynn: I was a Eurofighter Typhoon test pilot at precisely this phase of Typhoon's development. I grew up in the F-18 which was fragile in the beginning. I've been around the F-16 development, and I've watched the Raptor being developed. This [F-35] is the only airplane I've ever seen as stable and robust at this point in its development. We have more than 40 airplanes flying and everything works when you step into that airplane. I flew AF-20 twice in one day, with a 3 hour gap between; everything worked through the end of the second flight. That is absolutely unheard of. It's not bragging rights, it's just unheard of in the development of a fighter airplane that's this sophisticated. The helmet, the radar, the EW [Electronic Warfare], the DAS [Distributed Aperture System], it doesn't seem possible that we are doing as well as we are - it's remarkable. I think that bodes so well for what we are talking about in introducing a sound design. We're way better than anything I have ever seen in a fighter airplane...

And :

Flynn: "On the first time a pilot gets in the airplane, I think the first impression is going to be that this is a big, powerful, solid, honest airplane to fly. It's going to do exactly what he expects it to do right from the get-go. I think he's going to be very impressed by the situational awareness from the first time he takes-off and looks down at the two displays or looks through his helmet. I think he's going to feel like he is actually flying something new, because that's what I felt like on day one - I thought this is an entirely different experience from what I'm used to. I'm used to flying fast jets, I'm used to being overwhelmed with lots of screens, I'm not used to looking down and having that kind of situational awareness the first time out."

[Moonbox]

Irrelevant? No, you’re simply shifting the goal posts by comparing a full production figure (75 million), a figure that will include orders in the thousands, to that of the previous pre production figure (133 million), a figure that included an order that you could count with your fingers and toes.

I'm not shifting any goal posts. I'm using basic, fundamental math and logic. If you say the program will cost X amount of dollars for Y number of planes, it's pretty simple to come up with a price per plane. If the next year you say the program is going to cost 1.5X and the number of planes remains unchanged, the price per plane increases dramatically. The politicians and political hacks, however, prefer to put their heads in the sand and insist on their original per unit price. It's insane.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not shifting any goal posts. I'm using basic, fundamental math and logic. If you say the program will cost X amount of dollars for Y number of planes, it's pretty simple to come up with a price per plane. If the next year you say the program is going to cost 1.5X and the number of planes remains unchanged, the price per plane increases dramatically. The politicians and political hacks, however, prefer to put their heads in the sand and insist on their original per unit price. It's insane.

And how did you go from x to 1.5x? That’s basic math too……….Why not go from x to 3x? Explain the increase.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, I know……..And do you know what effect the rotors of a low flying helicopter play on Doppler radar?

As to the initial first night of the Gulf War, after said initial attack by the Apaches, USAF EF-111s, EC-130s, B-52s and Navy/Marine Prowlers, coupled with USAF F-4Gs “Wild Weasels” attacked the outlying portion of the national Iraqi air defence network, both radars and communication sites, in concert with the cruise missiles and F-117’s attacking the air defence command and control sites in Baghdad proper…..After the near destruction of their major facilities within the first night, individual sites were forced to illuminate their own radars, as such opening them up to attacks with HARM missiles from conventional fighters…..Almost like the Coalition had a plan to knock out one of the most extensive air defence networks in history eh? But during the entire conflict, the Stealth Fighters were the only ones to strike (key) targets over Baghdad.

Now with all that, in the near future, said scenario won’t require hundreds of aircraft, of dozens of types, to conduct such a goal……..All that will be needed will be F-35s, B-2s, stealth cruise missiles and if the technology matures, stealth UCAVs……….

Now what was your point?

And a week after my above comments, from the VP of Lockheed:

The fighter’s capabilities will make it a three- or four-for-one asset, said the Lockheed briefers, meaning that it will be able to simultaneously perform the roles of several different aircraft types—from strike to electronic attack, from command and control to battlefield surveillance.

O’Bryan pointed out an important truth about air combat: Fourth generation strike aircraft assigned to hit targets guarded by modern anti-access, area-denial systems (A2/AD, in military parlance) require the support of "AWACS, electronic attack, sweep airplanes, SEAD" (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft and cruise missiles. Such a package could run to dozens of aircraft.

The same mission, he claimed, can be achieved with just a quartet of F-35s. Each would be capable of operations that go well beyond air-to-ground missions. The four-ship would be a potent factor in any scenario calling for the employment of airpower, O’Bryan asserted.

Well at least Lockheed is following my lead……..

Another Interesting tidbit surprisingly released…………There goes the “expert bloggers” mantra of the F-35 handling like a pig:

Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons and fuel tanks.

To those that claim the Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet are Stealthy, and/or Stealth is not required, I’ll again ask why the Russians and Chinese are:

China and Russia have recognized the fallacy of trying to make a silk stealth purse out of a nonstealthy sow’s ear. That is why China is vigorously pursuing the J-20 and Russia the PAK-FA stealth fighter designs. If their programs pan out as expected, said O’Bryan, "fourth gen airplanes are really going to be at a serious disadvantage" against them.

(Fear the Mineshaft Gap!)

Another unexpected release of info:

In a modern A2/AD environment, no fourth generation fighter can survive, O’Bryan insisted, no matter how much support it receives from jammers. In such an environment, however, the F-35 can fly in relative safety, with more range than the F-16 and with the same combat payload.

When enemy defenses have been beaten down, and the need for stealthiness is not so strong, the F-35 will use both internal and external stations. That would boost its carrying capacity to a full 18,000 pounds of ordnance—more than triple the F-16’s max load of 5,200 pounds.

And back to my earlier point relating to ECM aircraft, or better put, the future lack of requirement:

Much speculation has swirled around the question of the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capabilities. The Air Force has resolutely refused to discuss any specifics. Yet experts have pointed out that, in its most recent EW/EA roadmap, USAF has failed to mention any plans for a dedicated jamming aircraft. It is a conspicuous omission.

O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with "no support whatever" from these systems.

Followed by:

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."

O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35A "is as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose." The F-35’s "sensitivity" and processing power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness as well as the ability to detect, locate, and target specific systems that need to be disrupted.

When it comes to electronic combat, the F-35A will make possible a new operational concept, O’Bryan said. The goal is not to simply suppress enemy air defenses. The goal will be to destroy them.

I mentioned this a few months earlier in one of the threads on the release of the test footage of the F-35's DAS:

As F-35s criss-cross enemy airspace, they also will automatically collect vast amounts of data about the disposition of enemy forces. They will, much like the JSTARS, collect ground moving target imagery and pass the data through electronic links to the entire force. This means the F-35 will be able to silently and stealthily transmit information and instructions to dispersed forces, in the air and on the ground.

Or better put, a God’s eye view of the battle space, but in a single seat aircraft…………It will be one of the greatest technical leaps since the introduction of the AEGIS combat system

Now the Bloggers mentioned that the F-35 wasn't a "dogfighter":

He noted that, in a close-turning dogfight with modern missiles, even a 1960s-era fighter such as the F-4 can get into a "mutual kill scenario" at close range with a fourth generation fighter. That’s why the F-35 was provided with the ability to fuse sensor information from many sources, triangulating with other F-35s to locate, identify, and fire on enemy aircraft before they are able to shoot back.

The F-35’s systems will even allow it to shoot at a target "almost when that airplane is behind you," thanks to its 360-degree sensors.

According to O’Bryan, the F-35 also can interrogate a target to its rear, an ability possessed by no other fighter.

Including the F-22 Raptor.

But what about the speculated numbers associated with speed and range? And Supercruise?

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.

That I didn't even know, since that encompasses the F-15E Strike Eagle........Now that's impressive!!!

[login]

And a week after my above comments, from the VP of Lockheed:

Just a sales punch.

To those that claim the Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet are Stealthy ...

sales. The Chinese also need to keep pushing their capabilities to show they can do it. the J-20 is a boat.

And back to my earlier point relating to ECM aircraft, or better put, the future lack of requirement:

Pod. The ECM capabilities of the f35 are limited and non finite in terms of performance.

Or better put, a God’s eye view of the battle space, but in a single seat aircraft…………It will be one of the greatest technical leaps since the introduction of the AEGIS combat system

The same sort of system can easily be incorporated into other jets.

Now the Bloggers mentioned that the F-35 wasn't a "dogfighter":

It isn't.

It is a strike bomber.

But what about the speculated numbers associated with speed and range? And Supercruise?

Its range is limited. Although well designed for an Israeli attack on Iran ?

The technological innovations except for internal baying can all be done by upgrades on other jets. It isn't that impressive based on the price haul. If you can have 10 jets hauling 10x the amount of ordinance or 4 jets what packs a bigger punch?

I will not doubt a claim the jet is an improvement on the F16, but all its bells and whistles can be done through much less expensive modifications on other systems.

The edge it has is its stealth but that stealth is not absolute, and will become dated very quickly. From reports it is already obsolete.

Name any system on the jet that for technical reasons cannot be reproduced on another jet other than the unique stealth and baying.

Edited November 4, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Just a sales punch.

sales. The Chinese also need to keep pushing their capabilities to show they can do it. the J-20 is a boat.

Pod. The ECM capabilities of the f35 are limited and non finite in terms of performance.

The same sort of system can easily be incorporated into other jets.

It isn't.

It is a strike bomber.

Its range is limited. Although well designed for an Israeli attack on Iran ?

The technological innovations except for internal baying can all be done by upgrades on other jets. It isn't that impressive based on the price haul. If you can have 10 jets hauling 10x the amount of ordinance or 4 jets what packs a bigger punch?

I will not doubt a claim the jet is an improvement on the F16, but all its bells and whistles can be done through much less expensive modifications on other systems.

The edge it has is its stealth but that stealth is not absolute, and will become dated very quickly. From reports it is already obsolete.

Name any system on the jet that for technical reasons cannot be reproduced on another jet other than the unique stealth and baying.

And you're basing your assumptions on what?

[Moonbox]

And how did you go from x to 1.5x? That’s basic math too……….Why not go from x to 3x? Explain the increase.

Go back to the Reuters article I posted. Pentagon estimates were $1 Trillion a year ago, now they're $1.45 Trillion. Go back several years ago and they're even lower. After all the delays, all of the revised (and increased) program cost estimates AND with the reduced number of orders, it takes a special type of voodoo financial magic to insist on the /unit cost from 2008 or 2009.

[Guest Derek L]

Go back to the Reuters article I posted. Pentagon estimates were $1 Trillion a year ago, now they're $1.45 Trillion. Go back several years ago and they're even lower. After all the delays, all of the revised (and increased) program cost estimates AND with the reduced number of orders, it takes a special type of voodoo financial magic to insist on the /unit cost from 2008 or 2009.

And as I said, from your article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329

While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over the next half-century.

They also argue that no other weapons program's costs have been calculated over such a long period, and that even shorter-term cost projections for other aircraft do not include the cost of modernization programs and upgrades.

As I’ve said, how did estimates “increase” and what is the methodology of said estimates?

And in response:

The Pentagon office that runs the F-35 program office has a lower estimate for lifetime costs, although it is still around $1 trillion, according to two sources familiar with the estimates. Both industry and government have put a huge emphasis on reducing operating costs and keeping the plane affordable.

So the question is, who is correct? Or perhaps from another perspective, what methodology is correct?

As I’ve stated numerous times, trying to predict economic conditions out into the 2060s is a fools errand, and changing the formula used in calculating said cost estimates from 30 years to 50 years is moving the proverbial “goal posts”. There is no disputing either fact.

[login]

And you're basing your assumptions on what?

An atleast average IQ.

[login]

And as I said, from your article:

http://www.reuters.c...E82S03L20120329

As I’ve said, how did estimates “increase” and what is the methodology of said estimates?

And in response:

So the question is, who is correct? Or perhaps from another perspective, what methodology is correct?

As I’ve stated numerous times, trying to predict economic conditions out into the 2060s is a fools errand, and changing the formula used in calculating said cost estimates from 30 years to 50 years is moving the proverbial “goal posts”. There is no disputing either fact.

So why is GDP only growing 2% if inflation accounts for a 150% price increase? It seems Canada's GDP growth is entirely based on money it is borrowing for the f35 program.

Something doesn't add up. Either the Canadian economy astronomically shrank, as the CAD is on par with the USD, last year or there is some major price jacking going on.

Based on CPI, only food gained more than 2% on the year with most others falling in 1 to 2% gains.

What was the increase in cost to the F35 program. It seems you arn't disputing the increase but placing a 50% increase on inflation is absurd.

Edited November 5, 2012 by login