F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

An atleast average IQ.

But nothing of substance right? You claim doing “x” is so easy, why not back it up?

[Guest Derek L]

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.

I didn’t recreate the accounting methodology used solely for the F-35 program……..What percentage of cost increases are associated with the contractor versus changing requirements and accounting methods?

[login]

I didn’t recreate the accounting methodology used solely for the F-35 program……..What percentage of cost increases are associated with the contractor versus changing requirements and accounting methods?

I think they are just trynig to make more on it, they've been making money for the last decade off a program that has produced only a batch of planes.

:"The plane is being bought in order to fly until the year 2060" This is a freaken marriage, do you really want a plane that is being heavily criticized before it is even bought in terms of performance as your "only" plane for the next 40 years, when we are entering a new age of nanocarbon and associated super technologies?

They are pricing so they don't loose money on their own screwed up program.

In terms of future super awe, this plane is not "fantastic" it is currently "on the edge" but it was designed like 15 years ago. Technology has changed a lot in 15 years.

I think 5 years from now when the planes are delivered Canadians can go, we have a good jet. But 5 years later, with 30+ years left in the service life, Canadians will be wondering why they are flying Camels.

The worst part is that the things are being bought with a credit card by a fiscally irresponsible deficit spending government adding billions and billions to the shoulders of Canadians while milking them for millions in personal pension benefits. It is absurd and backwards they would force the military to be using obsolete technology for 20 years in an age where there is a technological explosion in terms of new super technologies. It is condeming Canada to an era of tinfoil transistors when silicon chip will be here tommorow. This jet will fit on my fingernail within 10 years.

Now don't get me wrong I still support some purchases, just not the methods of procurement (it has to be financed with money in the bank not on a credit card), and the procurement should be done annually to assess new technologies as they emerge. This is why a ready to go proven model like the Rafale should be purchased to replace a chunk of the cf-18's when they end their service life (giving aircrew time to train on the Rafale or like) so that there isn't a gap in experience on the f35's. Plus the people in Quebec will like having a French plane. But the other part is that if 7 of these or 8 of these are bought each year or 4 starting next year then by 2024 that will be 40 f35's, but paid for if your price of 100 million per plane is correct (and it doesn't sound like it is..) budgetting 400 million a year in the defence budget is something the airforce should be able to muster, even if it means not going into syria or Iran when it happens. ) This means that it is paid for out of existing funds and thus does not represent a misappropriation. Meanwhile getting say 8 Rafale per year at 1 billion a year starting 2013, works out to 1.5 billion per year plus an additional billion but out of existing funds. The rafale purchases would end in 2018 at about 4 billion (for about 40), while at that point 20 f35's would be in service. (meaning 60 aircraft in 2018. The f35 purchases would continue based on existing productions (likely upgraded variants rather than old A models that would have to be upgraded) By 2024 this plane will be out of production except for foreign export and the US will have migrated to predominantly unmanned systems, or a newer jet since by that time america will have forgotten the trillion dollar program from their communal memory, should the world still be around. It will then push to get its last major purchases in before the undoubted chaos of the 2030's unless the world is a total police state then ruled by super technology and a computer hive mind.

Although I am skeptical of the f-18 pricing here.. perhaps even a mix of rafale and f-18's ex 4 rafale and 4 hornets starting 2013 until the f35's are available then change it up with the f35's take up procurements.

http://www.aviatia.n...rafale-vs-f-18/

Look at these claims on the rafale.

http://forum.lowyat....pic/2241997/all

\

Look at this comparitive in ratings the dutch did

F-35 = 6.97

RAFALE = 6.95

Eurofighter = 5.83

F-16 Block 60 = 5.80

The f-18's also give the advantage of not needing to retrain aged crew on a new model for the "leap year"

the replacement f-18's could be flown for low priority air escort etc.. since getting hours on them is OK. They could be used for "non current" tech ops, domestic support etc.. as the cf-18 upgrades are phased out, the new f-18's could be used as a legacy but in smaller numbers (only about 20), likewise the rafale would act as a transition force to insure operability while waiting for f35 numbers to increase. Since the f35 is "so vastly superior" smaller initial numbers are ok, for its strike operations, since Canada really doesn't have a big war to fight, and strategic strike operations on command and control by 20 f35's should be more than sufficient. Especially if Canada were to upgrade its non conventional strike capabilities such as with nuetron bomb type systems, or low yeild mass EPM burst high alt operations. I'm sure by 2024, air war will be totally different with more modern ground and (space) based Energy weapons moving at the speed of light, and super fast railguns that can fire half way around the world to negate the need for aircraft except for super precise strike. Missile defences will give way to ballistic defences from "railgun SAM" systems (in scifi they are called railguns - boom guns etc..) While energy based defences will need to be "sheild based" which will require high energy batteries to be mounted to the systems instead of bombs, to provide an energy field, or distort based on magnetic properties etc.. but how to attract light or just "super hard carbon sheilds that will absorb the energy and disipate it... The f35 doesn't offer those kinds of defences so it won't be usable in 10 years (except agianst 3rd world nations). because it will not have "full stealth to new sensor systems", nor "defensive sheilding" for HEWS, and rail SAM ballistics.

Procurement needs to be done on a yearly basis not a 40 year plan, it is absurd. People in the Pentagon are smarter than that. This stuff is for the war that will be in the next 10 years. 20 years from now these things will be fit for a museum and little more.

If you are supporting the purchase atleast tell the bloody truth. Stuff coming out of Lockheed Martin is sounding like desperation based on the level of fallacy involved with their statements. It is sad to say the F35 has turned into a stop loss program instead of the NEXT GEN fighter.. they don't want it to be the end.. that is the end of their business. So the timeline gets pushed further and further back as they cling to life and profits. Sure throw the dog a bone but don't feed him your leg.

Edited November 5, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

I think they are just trynig to make more on it, they've been making money for the last decade off a program that has produced only a batch of planes.

:"The plane is being bought in order to fly until the year 2060" This is a freaken marriage, do you really want a plane that is being heavily criticized before it is even bought in terms of performance as your "only" plane for the next 40 years, when we are entering a new age of nanocarbon and associated super technologies?

They are pricing so they don't loose money on their own screwed up program.

In terms of future super awe, this plane is not "fantastic" it is currently "on the edge" but it was designed like 15 years ago. Technology has changed a lot in 15 years.

I think 5 years from now when the planes are delivered Canadians can go, we have a good jet. But 5 years later, with 30+ years left in the service life, Canadians will be wondering why they are flying Camels.

What are the air forces of Canada, United States, the Netherlands, Australia, United Kingdom etc currently flying? And of said aircraft, when were they developed?

As to your assertion relating to pricing, who’s pricing so they “don’t lose money”? You understand that Lockheed didn’t change the accounting method right?

As to “future super awe”, didn’t you just suggest purchasing an aircraft that was born in the early 80s?

[Guest Derek L]

The worst part is that the things are being bought with a credit card by a fiscally irresponsible deficit spending government adding billions and billions to the shoulders of Canadians while milking them for millions in personal pension benefits. It is absurd and backwards they would force the military to be using obsolete technology for 20 years in an age where there is a technological explosion in terms of new super technologies. It is condeming Canada to an era of tinfoil transistors when silicon chip will be here tommorow. This jet will fit on my fingernail within 10 years.

But you’re ok with buying a Rafale with the credit card?

ow don't get me wrong I still support some purchases, just not the methods of procurement (it has to be financed with money in the bank not on a credit card), and the procurement should be done annually to assess new technologies as they emerge. This is why a ready to go proven model like the Rafale should be purchased to replace a chunk of the cf-18's when they end their service life (giving aircrew time to train on the Rafale or like) so that there isn't a gap in experience on the f35's. Plus the people in Quebec will like having a French plane. But the other part is that if 7 of these or 8 of these are bought each year or 4 starting next year then by 2024 that will be 40 f35's, but paid for if your price of 100 million per plane is correct (and it doesn't sound like it is..) budgetting 400 million a year in the defence budget is something the airforce should be able to muster, even if it means not going into syria or Iran when it happens. ) This means that it is paid for out of existing funds and thus does not represent a misappropriation. Meanwhile getting say 8 Rafale per year at 1 billion a year starting 2013, works out to 1.5 billion per year plus an additional billion but out of existing funds. The rafale purchases would end in 2018 at about 4 billion (for about 40), while at that point 20 f35's would be in service. (meaning 60 aircraft in 2018. The f35 purchases would continue based on existing productions (likely upgraded variants rather than old A models that would have to be upgraded) By 2024 this plane will be out of production except for foreign export and the US will have migrated to predominantly unmanned systems, or a newer jet since by that time america will have forgotten the trillion dollar program from their communal memory, should the world still be around. It will then push to get its last major purchases in before the undoubted chaos of the 2030's unless the world is a total police state then ruled by super technology and a computer hive mind.

Although I am skeptical of the f-18 pricing here.. perhaps even a mix of rafale and f-18's ex 4 rafale and 4 hornets starting 2013 until the f35's are available then change it up with the f35's take up procurements.

So now you want not only the Rafale, but also the Hornet and F-35? Didn’t we go over this already?

And you’re not going to get 8 Rafale for a billion a year……….The Australians paid nearly 7 billion for 24 of the cheaper Super Hornets………….As for the production time frame, the F-35 production line is expected to go into the early 2030s……..Of course back in the 1970s, no one would have thought the F-16 would still be in production over 30 years later, as such, it’s not unreasonable to expect the F-35 to still be in production, as the lower costing option in contrast to the then 6th generation, out to the 2040s………

[Moonbox]

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.

The change in time frame is not recent. It's not as if in the last year or so they all of the sudden decided it would change. As you already brought up, this was determined ~4 years ago. The estimated cost per plane, as per LM and the official canned political/senior Pentagon response, has changed only marginally for as long as I've been following the topic. The overall program costs, however, have skyrocketed.

Get these simple points through your head:

The program is way behind schedule.

The number of planes being purchased has been significantly reduced.

These points alone are enough to confirm that the cost estimates are off. If you give us an estimate on timetables, overall costs and number of units being sold, and you end up being late, over budget AND people are reducing order quantities, SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.

The original US order in 2001 was for around 2900 aircraft and the original price-tag was hoped to be along the same lines of the F-16 program ($60M/unit). Deployment was originally hoped for 2012.

As of 2011, the program was already 75% over budget, the order was reduced to ~2450 units, and now program development isn't expected to be done until ~2020.

To summarize, the program is over 75% over-budget for 15-20% fewer planes than originally forecast, AND it's 10 years late so far. If you want to insist that none of that translates to a more expensive plane, that's insane. I hope you like the taste of sand.

[bleeding heart]

The original US order in 2001 was for around 2900 aircraft and the original price-tag was hoped to be along the same lines of the F-16 program ($60M/unit). Deployment was originally hoped for 2012.

As of 2011, the program was already 75% over budget, the order was reduced to ~2450 units, and now program development isn't expected to be done until ~2020.

To summarize, the program is over 75% over-budget for 15-20% fewer planes than originally forecast, AND it's 10 years late so far.

!!!

Well said, MB.

[PIK]

China now is testing it's second version of the 5th generation fighter, they are getting closer.

[Topaz]

While going after the F-35, the Tories should have put tenders out so they would have something to compare prices and performance on but they didn`t they got stuck on one jet. let`s also remember that the F-35 has only one engine and if anything goes wrong, the jet crashes and in a war one good shot and its gone. This kind o military buying can bankrupt a country, so we have to be smarter than we are now.

[PIK]

While going after the F-35, the Tories should have put tenders out so they would have something to compare prices and performance on but they didn`t they got stuck on one jet. let`s also remember that the F-35 has only one engine and if anything goes wrong, the jet crashes and in a war one good shot and its gone. This kind o military buying can bankrupt a country, so we have to be smarter than we are now.

The one engine is not a issue, you should read more about from people that know or fly one engine air crafts, instead of what the CBC told you. And why do you keep bring up the tender process, there was one and the F-35 won. Do you work for the CBC? And the amount of money we spend on the military will never bankrupt this country. Edited November 5, 2012 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

The program is way behind schedule.

No, the flight testing actually surpassed the programs schedule set for 2012 back in the Spring, as such, the first Operational Block 2 squadron will stand up early next year as opposed to next summer.

The number of planes being purchased has been significantly reduced.

That’s not accurate either, in that the number of LRIP aircraft have been reduced for flight testing & training as a cost cutting decision so as to save on upgrading their software to that of the production level later this decade……..That did play a significant role in increasing the per plane price of the LRIP aircraft, but as I said numerous times, pricing associated with LRIP and production aircraft is apples to oranges.

[Moonbox]

No, the flight testing actually surpassed the programs schedule set for 2012 back in the Spring, as such, the first Operational Block 2 squadron will stand up early next year as opposed to next summer.

So they throw a few planes in the air just to say, "Aha! See! We're on track!" What a milestone!" You're right though, within the next year, the USMC will have enough for an operational squadron of 16 planes. Neato! I'm not sure about the other branches of the military, but it doesn't look like they're going to do a ton better.

Regardless, the original plan for initial deployment was 2012. That's gone and past. They're not even done designing and developing the entire system yet, and that's apparently years away still before everything is done. The initial batch of planes isn't even going to have the proper electronics/software on-board. Any planes built now are going to need to be expensively refitted with the proper systems later.

That’s not accurate either, in that the number of LRIP aircraft have been reduced for flight testing & training as a cost cutting decision so as to save on upgrading their software to that of the production level later this decade……..That did play a significant role in increasing the per plane price of the LRIP aircraft, but as I said numerous times, pricing associated with LRIP and production aircraft is apples to oranges.

So they dropped ~400 aircraft designated for training??

Your apples to oranges argument is also non-sensical. They dropped ~400 units from the order. Unless that brought the overall program costs under budget (it didn't), that's automatically going to lead to a /unit increase in cost.

Your ability to wriggle and squirm around with this topic is impressive. I'm not arguing anything about initial production numbers. I'm arguing overall program costs (way over initial budget), total units being built and missed deadlines are all contributing to an increased unit cost. Once again, the magical formula you and others use to insist on the earlier estimated unit price is baffling.

Increased overall program spending + Missed Deadlines + Reduced Orders =/ Increased Cost/Unit ?????

Okay....

[Guest Derek L]

So they throw a few planes in the air just to say, "Aha! See! We're on track!" What a milestone!" You're right though, within the next year, the USMC will have enough for an operational squadron of 16 planes. Neato! I'm not sure about the other branches of the military, but it doesn't look like they're going to do a ton better.

Regardless, the original plan for initial deployment was 2012. That's gone and past. They're not even done designing and developing the entire system yet, and that's apparently years away still before everything is done. The initial batch of planes isn't even going to have the proper electronics/software on-board. Any planes built now are going to need to be expensively refitted with the proper systems later.

The branch I was referring to was the USAF with the F-35A, the model we’re purchasing……..And the first squadron of “A’s” will stand up at Luke AFB next year to start training the initial cadre of instructors so Luke‘s F-16s squadrons can start the conversion process………….As to the avionics of the F-35, unlike previous aircraft that generally went through one or two large upgrade programs over the course of their lives, the F-35 will be continuously upgraded across the entire user base.

As for the USMC, well, the “B” was on probation until early this year……..It’s progress this year has been remarkable, and based on it being the most complex of the three models, by it moving to operational status, this clearly demonstrates the overall health of the entire program.

So they dropped ~400 aircraft designated for training?? Your apples to oranges argument is also non-sensical. They dropped ~400 units from the order. Unless that brought the overall program costs under budget (it didn't), that's automatically going to lead to a /unit increase in cost.

Your ability to wriggle and squirm around with this topic is impressive. I'm not arguing anything about initial production numbers. I'm arguing overall program costs (way over initial budget), total units being built and missed deadlines are all contributing to an increased unit cost. Once again, the magical formula you and others use to insist on the earlier estimated unit price is baffling.

Increased overall program spending + Missed Deadlines + Reduced Orders =/ Increased Cost/Unit ?????

Okay....

For training and development…………I see you can’t make the leap between the two.

Training the initial instructors on not only the three variants for the three American services, but also the other partner nations, will encompass a great many aircraft initially……………..What is the point of having aircraft if nobody can fly them?

To put this in perspective, Canada alone has one conversion squadron to train and sustain our two operational squadrons of Hornets………Or ~24 aircraft to allow for ~48 operational……….Now with that kind of ratio, include the requirements of the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF/FAA, the Dutch, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Australians, the Italians, the Turks, the Israelis and the Japanese.

All along with aircraft required to participate in concurrent developmental testing…………..Yeah, a few hundred initial aircraft is a “big deal”………..And yet such decision to defer the cost of upgrading the initial production blocks was made by the Obama administration as opposed to Lockheed.

But to put this in better perspective with other aircraft developmental timelines, Lockheed won the JSF competition in the Fall of ’01, but began development of the X-35 in the mid 90s……….Other claimed alternative aircraft, the Eurofighter and Rafale began a symbiotic life in the early 80s and 30 years later, neither aircraft are fully mature yet………

[Moonbox]

Pretty much nothing you just said there addressed anything I brought up.

Total program cost / Overall units = Cost / Unit

We have delays and a program cost that's FAR exceeded the planned budget, and we have a reduced number of units. All of this leads to an increased cost/unit.

You keep bringing up all sorts of interesting little facts, but none of them address the math. An enormously over-budget program is an enormously over-budget program, and there aren't many ways for this to not increase the cost of the end product.

[Guest Derek L]

Pretty much nothing you just said there addressed anything I brought up.

Total program cost / Overall units = Cost / Unit

We have delays and a program cost that's FAR exceeded the planned budget, and we have a reduced number of units. All of this leads to an increased cost/unit.

You keep bringing up all sorts of interesting little facts, but none of them address the math. An enormously over-budget program is an enormously over-budget program, and there aren't many ways for this to not increase the cost of the end product.

I already did address the suspect “math”, in terms of accounting methods, the addition of new costs (not associated with past aircraft) by the Government to the F-35 program and delaying planned purchases to save later on upgrade costs……….As I did the downward trending of the flyaway purchase price of the F-35 LRIP aircraft and how that will correspond with the per plane flyaway cost of the production aircraft.

I would love someone to show a detailed cost report/breakdown of the “cost overruns” and to whom said “overruns” can be attributed to, be they the US Government or Lockheed………..Funny the GAO hasn’t released that information………..Just the previous US Government insistence of the development of two different engines, for no clear benefit other than pork, cost 100s of millions (if not a billions) of dollars, to say nothing of time wasted.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Derek L

[Moonbox]

There's nothing suspect about the math. It's business/econ 101 type stuff. You have your fixed/sunk costs and your variable costs, and the longer the development of the plane continues, and the more changes and revisions that are done, the higher the fixed/sunk costs become. To cover these costs, sufficient units need to be sold at sufficient margins. If you reduce the number of units being sold, the margin has to be higher to cover the sunk costs. Compounding this problem, however, is the fact that the fewer the units produced, the higher the variable costs will be in the production process, thus forcing the price up to meet margin requirements. Derek, this is REALLY basic, fundamental stuff here.

As for providing a detailed breakdown of all of the cost overruns etc, I think a lot of people would like to see that. LM and a lot of the politicians/senior Pentagon, officials with their heads on the line still insist that their projections are accurate. Basic economics and math would suggest otherwise, as would various other Pentagon officials, budget watchdogs, think-tanks, defense experts and anyone (politician or otherwise) not playing cover-your-ass.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

There's nothing suspect about the math. It's business/econ 101 type stuff. You have your fixed/sunk costs and your variable costs, and the longer the development of the plane continues, and the more changes and revisions that are done, the higher the fixed/sunk costs become. To cover these costs, sufficient units need to be sold at sufficient margins. If you reduce the number of units being sold, the margin has to be higher to cover the sunk costs. Compounding this problem, however, is the fact that the fewer the units produced, the higher the variable costs will be in the production process, thus forcing the price up to meet margin requirements. Derek, this is REALLY basic, fundamental stuff here.

As for providing a detailed breakdown of all of the cost overruns etc, I think a lot of people would like to see that. LM and a lot of the politicians/senior Pentagon, officials with their heads on the line still insist that their projections are accurate. Basic economics and math would suggest otherwise, as would various other Pentagon officials, budget watchdogs, think-tanks, defense experts and anyone (politician or otherwise) not playing cover-your-ass.

I can fathom the mechanics involved in math, but thanks though………….Obviously 1 trillion / divided by ~3000 aircraft will have a differing total than 1.5 trillion divided by ~3000 aircraft, just as 1.5 trillion divided by 4500 aircraft would effect the outcome……….The important factor in determining said result is imputing the correct numbers into said equation………

As to developmental costs and the factor they play with the final per plane purchase costing, as I’ve already outlined numerous times in this thread (And the others), said costs have been or are already being paid by both of the tier 1 members (United States & United Kingdom) under the framework of the JSF program…….Under said framework, tier 1 members also get to bid on the more lucrative contracts of the program in response to their greater initial investment………….Canada is not a tier 1 member, as such will not be effected by the initial development costs of the aircraft (As what’s underway now), but will pay a percentage of the ongoing upgrades through the life of the program based on a formula contrived from our “invested market share” (65 aircraft)

As to the economics, like what was mentioned in one thread discussing the Chevy Volt electric car, the producer doesn’t include all the developmental costs onto the consumer with the initial purchase, but hopes to recoup said losses by volume of sale and lifetime support……….Case in point, the recent Japanese (a non JSF member country) contract with Lockheed, in which the Japanese per plane purchase price (with support) is aligned with our Government’s proposed purchase.

All that aside, it doesn’t bear fruit with the argument that Canada (Or any other partners) should abandon the program based on a “sub standard performance” of the F-35 (Which is BS), or for that mater, pursue a “cheaper alternative” from the “fourth generation” (Of which there really isn’t).

Wherever the opponents of the F-35 “chime in”, I’ll ask what would you purchase?

The Eurofighter and Rafale both have flyaway cost approaching the current flyaway cost of the LRIP F-35A and the Australians recently purchased 24 Super Hornets (with 20 years support) for 6.6 billion………

[Moonbox]

The US gov't isn't footing the bill for the entire development process. Can you imagine how sweet that deal would be?

When it comes down to it, I support the JSF program. I think it's been horribly mishandled and is going to end up way more expensive than it should have been, but one of the biggest problems with the program is also going to be one of the reasons it has to go through. It's a one-shoe-fits-all-roles platform and there's nothing currently in development that will match it.

In the end, it's going to go down in the books as what NOT to do in terms of military procurement.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

The US gov't isn't footing the bill for the entire development process. Can you imagine how sweet that deal would be?

Who's been paying for it then? We’ve paid our pittance of a tier 1 entrance fee (~150 million), well over the course of the last 10+ years Canadian companies and subsidiaries have garnered more then double that in contracts (to date) and haven’t paid a single cent since…………And as I said above, we have a deal in principle for (~$14.8 billion) 65 F-35s (and support) and said deal is align with the recent Japanese deal ($8 billion) for 42 F-35s (and support)

When it comes down to it, I support the JSF program. I think it's been horribly mishandled and is going to end up way more expensive than it should have been, but one of the biggest problems with the program is also going to be one of the reasons it has to go through. It's a one-shoe-fits-all-roles platform and there's nothing currently in development that will match it.

In the end, it's going to go down in the books as what NOT to do in terms of military procurement.

I disagree, it’s a mater of perspective…………….If one counted the aircraft types it’s going to replace (F-16, F/A-18, F-117, Harrier II, A-10 and 2/3rds of the Tornado fleet) and adjusted each aircraft types total monetary expenditures for inflation to today’s dollars, then applied the same accounting methods affixed to the F-35 program out to the 2060s, you’d have a total well over 4 trillion dollars……….With that, be it 1 trillion or 1.5 trillion, the F-35 is a steal.

[wyly]

China now is testing it's second version of the 5th generation fighter, they are getting closer.

so what.... are we going to war with China?... for what reason?... for the oil we're happy to sell to them?... to force us to buy their products that we already eagerly buy?...

and why should fear a Chinese stealth plane that will never even have the range to even approach canada? and even if in some wild implausible scenario we ended up in a war with China do you really believe a couple dozen stealth fighters with limited range is going to save us from any aggressive nuclear superpower? I give us a day at most before we're neutralized and surrender...

[Guest Derek L]

so what.... are we going to war with China?... for what reason?... for the oil we're happy to sell to them?... to force us to buy their products that we already eagerly buy?...

and why should fear a Chinese stealth plane that will never even have the range to even approach canada? and even if in some wild implausible scenario we ended up in a war with China do you really believe a couple dozen stealth fighters with limited range is going to save us from any aggressive nuclear superpower? I give us a day at most before we're neutralized and surrender...

The Chinese and Russians have this habit of selling their wares to those that we’re not exactly friends with……..

[Moonbox]

Who's been paying for it then? We’ve paid our pittance of a tier 1 entrance fee (~150 million), well over the course of the last 10+ years Canadian companies and subsidiaries have garnered more then double that in contracts (to date) and haven’t paid a single cent since…………And as I said above, we have a deal in principle for (~$14.8 billion) 65 F-35s (and support) and said deal is align with the recent Japanese deal ($8 billion) for 42 F-35s (and support)

I'm sure a lot of the $$$ invested so far has been invested by LM, which they're looking to make back from aircraft sales, along with a tidy profit.

I disagree, it’s a mater of perspective…………….If one counted the aircraft types it’s going to replace (F-16, F/A-18, F-117, Harrier II, A-10 and 2/3rds of the Tornado fleet) and adjusted each aircraft types total monetary expenditures for inflation to today’s dollars, then applied the same accounting methods affixed to the F-35 program out to the 2060s, you’d have a total well over 4 trillion dollars……….With that, be it 1 trillion or 1.5 trillion, the F-35 is a steal.

First of all, the F-35 is entering a post-Cold War world where there's no major antagonist or arms race going on. Second, there's a pretty large discrepancy in the number of planes coming out (in the magnitude of several thousand). The $1.5T mark is also only the cost (so far) to the USA.

It would be interesting to see where your $4T figure came from too. Care to show?

Edited November 6, 2012 by Moonbox

[login]

What are the air forces of Canada, United States, the Netherlands, Australia, United Kingdom etc currently flying? And of said aircraft, when were they developed?

The pace of technological change ... the pace of techonological change--- Moore's Law.

This ain't the mofo 80's. it is 20 f-in 12. nearly lucky 13. We have robots and AI's running the stock market, designing computer chips and computers that contain more data than the planet. This is not a mechanical age no more.

As to your assertion relating to pricing, who’s pricing so they “don’t lose money”? You understand that Lockheed didn’t change the accounting method right?

As to “future super awe”, didn’t you just suggest purchasing an aircraft that was born in the early 80s?

As a third plane for a "low cost" mission capable jet to be a work horse on flight hours and training. I don't suggest solely buying f-18's (nor do I want to see this as an option as opposed a completely Canadian produced knock off, such as buying the rights or something then putting it into production if the price is right (plus some modern upgrades that will make it more mission capable such as f35 360 by 360 vision and firing lines via various systems, upgrades here and there without compramising the fact the plane will be a platform as opposed to a strike aircraft for the "low cost model" with just a little tweaking you can get a extra super hornet out of a f-18 system for no where near the price of an f35 - you know you can aim for something that will match a PAKFA or J20 for defence characteristics, I'm not by manoverability but by punch be it convention, or EW, or something special and unexpected. Also if you can rig a car to drive itself you can rig a plane to do the same with a simple computer system, and that is what a new variant cf-18me version should be .). But I still think that jumpingin with just one jet is a little foolish if the jet hasn't flown or finished testing, and the software development for the system isn't complete. Its like buying a billions windows OS' in the days bluescreens were common.

Edited November 6, 2012 by login

[login]

But you’re ok with buying a Rafale with the credit card?

Absolutely not. I no where said buy 40 Rafale up front. I said budget in 1.5 billion a year and project it to run for 5 years or something of that sort

So now you want not only the Rafale, but also the Hornet and F-35? Didn’t we go over this already?

Exactly just less f35's unless they are still hot sh1t in 2024, which at that ponit. However the procurement would be some varianet f-18's and Rafale only a few a year to come into service as the cf-18's are down cycled. between 2013 and 2018, when the f35 starts delivery they will fill the rest of the old cf-18s down cycle up to 2020 and be a procurement into 2024.

And you’re not going to get 8 Rafale for a billion a year……….The Australians paid nearly 7 billion for 24 of the cheaper Super Hornets………….

From the pricing 100 million seems more than enough for the procurement based on the deals that were offered for the gulf states and India.

As for the production time frame, the F-35 production line is expected to go into the early 2030s……..Of course back in the 1970s, no one would have thought the F-16 would still be in production over 30 years later, as such, it’s not unreasonable to expect the F-35 to still be in production, as the lower costing option in contrast to the then 6th generation, out to the 2040s………

Its a different world. This is assuming lockheed martin doesn't go out of business before then. Lockheed can't count on foreign sales for these things any time soon, and subsequent orders arn't likely atleast while it is in control of its business.

http://www.macroaxis...y_Of_Bankruptcy

Now this is only rated at about a 20% chance of bankrupcy and their debt load is only 25% more than their assets. But I don't see who will be buying the jets after the initially procurements? Are countries like Austrailia and UK going to buy more of these?

Who else can buy them? With the Eurozone collapse the US economy dying, are you going to sell them to China, would they even buy them, and then what? Duck?

I'm just highly critical of you slotting these in for even 20 years as something to put all your faith into.

Edited November 6, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sure a lot of the $$$ invested so far has been invested by LM, which they're looking to make back from aircraft sales, along with a tidy profit.

From money garnered by the US taxpayer........in case of both the X-35 and X-32

First of all, the F-35 is entering a post-Cold War world where there's no major antagonist or arms race going on. Second, there's a pretty large discrepancy in the number of planes coming out (in the magnitude of several thousand). The $1.5T mark is also only the cost (so far) to the USA.

No arms race? You better tell the Chinese and Russians.

It would be interesting to see where your $4T figure came from too. Care to show?

I read the calculation somewhere, I’ll see if I can find the link………..With that said, I wouldn’t think it hard to find the costing of the above cited aircraft programs and “do the math”.