F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) is a diversified company with annual gross sales revenue of about $48 billion dollars. Canada's potential contribution to future sales revenue for F-35's is a relative drop in the bucket. Canada still buys other LockMart aircraft, subsystems, and support.

[Moonbox]

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

Sure, a lot of it came from them. To suggest that LM has no sunk costs in the project, however, is silly.

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

Arms race with the Chinese and the Russians? Sorry, but no. If you're even SUGGESTING that this is happening then you need to learn a bit more about each nation's respective military. I always find this a refreshing link:

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

You'll see that the US spends more on their military than pretty much the rest of the world COMBINED. They spend more per capita as well. Look up how many aircraft carriers the USA is operating and their displacements, then compare that to what the Russians and Chinese have.

I always think it's funny how little people understand the US military. It's pretty much the most kick-ass military the world has ever seen, by far. There's no contest whatsoever.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

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”.

Just for a rough example, and using a quick Google, the Pentagon awarded the initial YF-16 contract to General Dynamics in the early 70s to produce a single prototype valued at $37.9 million………Now using this inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

we get: $144169174.22 in 2011 dollars.........The price for the first F-16

[wyly]

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

and who would those imaginary enemies be that threaten us, Denmark/Greenland?...you're stretching to find credible threats where none exist, this is more plane than what we need...a super hornet is all we require until the unnamed drones take over the shies completely making man fighters obsolete at a fraction of the cost... Edited November 6, 2012 by wyly

[Guest Derek L]

Sure, a lot of it came from them. To suggest that LM has no sunk costs in the project, however, is silly.

Arms race with the Chinese and the Russians? Sorry, but no. If you're even SUGGESTING that this is happening then you need to learn a bit more about each nation's respective military. I always find this a refreshing link:

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

You'll see that the US spends more on their military than pretty much the rest of the world COMBINED. They spend more per capita as well. Look up how many aircraft carriers the USA is operating and their displacements, then compare that to what the Russians and Chinese have.

I always think it's funny how little people understand the US military. It's pretty much the most kick-ass military the world has ever seen, by far. There's no contest whatsoever.

Explain the Chinese change in force posture, to one of an expeditionary military……….In all of Chinese history, they have only been a regional power……..why the change?

[Guest Derek L]

and who would those imaginary enemies be that threaten us, Denmark/Greenland?...

Beats me.......I’d have called you Bananas if you suggested two years ago we’d be bombing Libya.

[wyly]

Explain the Chinese change in force posture, to one of an expeditionary military……….In all of Chinese history, they have only been a regional power……..why the change?

when exactly did the chinese become an expeditionary power?...they aren't our enemies and neither are the russians...the russians aren't even an expeditionary power...the USA on the other hand is.... Edited November 6, 2012 by wyly

[Guest Derek L]

when exactly did the chinese become an expeditionary power?...they aren't our enemies and neither are the russians...

When they started their aircraft carrier program and signed basing rights with countries along the Indian Ocean………

[wyly]

Beats me.......I’d have called you Bananas if you suggested two years ago we’d be bombing Libya.

libya is a threat?.... libya was never a threat or an enemy to us... we needed stealth planes to bomb libya?...if had drones they could have bombed libya...

[bush_cheney2004]

libya is a threat?.... libya was never a threat or an enemy to us... we needed stealth planes to bomb libya?...if had drones they could have bombed libya...

Sure...after the Americans suppressed all air defenses as in 2011.

[Guest Derek L]

libya is a threat?.... libya was never a threat or an enemy to us... we needed stealth planes to bomb libya?...if had drones they could have bombed libya...

Lack of access to what’s in the ground in Libya is a threat…………..As for “Stealth planes” to bomb Libya, well the B-2 was the first aircraft in for a reason……..

[wyly]

When they started their aircraft carrier program and signed basing rights with countries along the Indian Ocean………

having a carrier doesn't make a country an aggressive power, they have a seacoast and the right to patrol as they see fit, they don't even have planes for their carrier...if carriers aren't already obsolete they will be in 10 yrs anyways...and ten years is probably the earliest the chinese will have planes on a 2nd rate used carrier...

[Guest Derek L]

having a carrier doesn't make a country an aggressive power, they have a seacoast and the right to patrol as they see fit, they don't even have planes for their carrier...if carriers aren't already obsolete they will be in 10 yrs anyways...and ten years is probably the earliest the chinese will have planes on a 2nd rate used carrier...

Ahh, so it's to patrol their "seacoast"..........

[wyly]

Ahh, so it's to patrol their "seacoast"..........

ahh they have an proven aggressive expeditionary nation patrolling in their territorial region with multiple carrier fleets so ya they can be justified having a solitary unarmed carrier puttering around in their own regional waters...and we need f35's to counter this imaginary threat of a carrier with no planes?

[Guest Derek L]

ahh they have an proven aggressive expeditionary nation patrolling in their territorial region with multiple carrier fleets so ya they can be justified having a solitary unarmed carrier puttering around in their own regional waters...and we need f35's to counter this imaginary threat of a carrier with no planes?

As for putting around in their own regional waters, why sign naval basing rights in Africa and Myanmar?

They only commissioned it a few months ago and well:

[wyly]

this all very "reds under beds" derek

"touch and goes" on 2nd hand carriers really?

yup fellow canadians we're in eminent peril of the Chinese capturing Ellesmere island, be afraid be very afraid... we need an f35 on every street corner to protect us from the chinese corporate world and unfriendly rouge Somalian pirates...

[Guest Derek L]

this all very "reds under beds" derek

"touch and goes" on 2nd hand carriers really?

yup fellow canadians we're in eminent peril of the Chinese capturing Ellesmere island, be afraid be very afraid... we need an f35 on every street corner to protect us from the chinese corporate world and unfriendly rouge Somalian pirates...

So you can predict with certainty, that over the course of the F-35’s life (~2060) we (As in the West) won’t be involved in another war? Can you predict the Lotto numbers for your next trick?

[Moonbox]

Explain the Chinese change in force posture, to one of an expeditionary military……….In all of Chinese history, they have only been a regional power……..why the change?

Because much of the resources they need are outside of their historical sphere of influence. Unfortunately for them, they're so far behind in terms of force projection capabilities that it will be decades before they can catch up (ie 25 years or more). By then the F-35 won't be nearly as impressive as it is today. It's like bankrupting yourself now so that you can be protected from the threat that doesn't exist, all so that you can be too broke to protect yourself properly when the threat actually materializes.

[Guest Derek L]

Because much of the resources they need are outside of their historical sphere of influence. Unfortunately for them, they're so far behind in terms of force projection capabilities that it will be decades before they can catch up (ie 25 years or more). By then the F-35 won't be nearly as impressive as it is today. It's like bankrupting yourself now so that you can be protected from the threat that doesn't exist, all so that you can be too broke to protect yourself properly when the threat actually materializes.

So you’re proposing what? We just purchase a 4th generation aircraft because in 25 years the F-35 will be obsolete? But the 4th generation aircraft cost nearly/or as much as the F-35.……….And what of Russian and Chinese programs developing their own “5th generation stealth aircraft”?……….What will they look like contrasted to the F-35 in 25 years?

How would a Super Hornet or Rafale compare against a stealth Russian/Chinese fighter in ~2035? And even if we’re not involved in a conflict with Russia/China at all, but we must put our Super Hornet/Rafale up against a Russian/Chinese stealth fighter flown by the air force of Bumfuckistian in ~2035.….Is that something you advocate?

As to protecting yourself when said threat materializes, you understand that modern defence projects don’t happen overnight…………Though a minor “elective” war, the campaign in Libya gave us what? Two months lead time?

[wyly]

So you can predict with certainty, that over the course of the F-35’s life (~2060) we (As in the West) won’t be involved in another war? Can you predict the Lotto numbers for your next trick?

we went through an intense cold war without a war and now we're rapidly expanding trade and social contacts with these former adversaries who are themselves becoming more capitalistic and open...and you believe they want to throw all their social and market gains away so they go to war?..seriously where is the sense in that, for what reason would they destroy their economies, wars are horrifically expensive there is no economic benefit..they have nothing to gain....the odds of canada going to war with russia or china or being attacked by any country in the next 50 yrs are the same as me winning the lotto, zero....

[Moonbox]

So you’re proposing what? We just purchase a 4th generation aircraft because in 25 years the F-35 will be obsolete? But the 4th generation aircraft cost nearly/or as much as the F-35.……….And what of Russian and Chinese programs developing their own “5th generation stealth aircraft”?……….What will they look like contrasted to the F-35 in 25 years?

How would a Super Hornet or Rafale compare against a stealth Russian/Chinese fighter in ~2035? And even if we’re not involved in a conflict with Russia/China at all, but we must put our Super Hornet/Rafale up against a Russian/Chinese stealth fighter flown by the air force of Bumfuckistian in ~2035.….Is that something you advocate?

As to protecting yourself when said threat materializes, you understand that modern defence projects don’t happen overnight…………Though a minor “elective” war, the campaign in Libya gave us what? Two months lead time?

It's too late now to do anything about it. The damage is already done. The better solution at the time of conception would have been to maintain the multi-platform doctrine rather than try to fit every single little capability into one plane.

[Guest Derek L]

we went through an intense cold war without a war and now we're rapidly expanding trade and social contacts with these former adversaries who are themselves becoming more capitalistic and open...and you believe they want to throw all their social and market gains away so they go to war?..seriously where is the sense in that, for what reason would they destroy their economies, wars are horrifically expensive there is no economic benefit..they have nothing to gain....the odds of canada going to war with russia or china or being attacked by any country in the next 50 yrs are the same as me winning the lotto, zero....

And since the demise of the Soviet Union, how many conflicts has Canada been involved in? Of said conflicts, how many involved the usage of Canadian airpower? Rather stark since the Canadian air force hasn’t participated in a conflict since the Second World War.

[Guest Derek L]

It's too late now to do anything about it. The damage is already done. The better solution at the time of conception would have been to maintain the multi-platform doctrine rather than try to fit every single little capability into one plane.

And have multiple, mini JSF programs (see A-12 Avenger and the F-22)? And who would build such aircraft? At the start of the JSF program, there were only two viable American producers of combat aircraft left………Boeing and Lockheed………………This is the direct result of the multiple platform approach and peace dividend of the 90s which weakened such manufactures as McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, Martin Marietta, Rockwell/North American, Ling-Temco-Vought and forced General Dynamics to divest itself of military aviation………..As such, the above mentioned manufactures were acquired by Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop……Boeing lost…..And Lockheed/Northrop are building the F-35.…….

[Bonam]

And have multiple, mini JSF programs (see A-12 Avenger and the F-22)? And who would build such aircraft?

Presumably, Boeing and Lockheed. They can execute more than one aircraft development program at a time, if funded to do so.

That being said, I think the single multifunctional platform idea is the right way to go. Simplifies logistics, benefits from economies of scale, and some of the roles/technologies have been streamlined and miniaturized enough that they really don't need their own dedicated platform anyway. I myself kind of wonder if even the dedicated bomber role is gonna disappear in favor of drones and strike fighters.

[Guest Derek L]

Presumably, Boeing and Lockheed. They can execute more than one aircraft development program at a time, if funded to do so.

That being said, I think the single multifunctional platform idea is the right way to go. Simplifies logistics, benefits from economies of scale, and some of the roles/technologies have been streamlined and miniaturized enough that they really don't need their own dedicated platform anyway. I myself kind of wonder if even the dedicated bomber role is gonna disappear in favor of drones and strike fighters.

They most certainly could, but again, I question the benefit to namely the Americans……….The naval and STOVL variants, aside from being the highest risk platforms, are also niche markets……….Developing a stealth naval aircraft, a stealth STOVL aircraft and a stealth conventional fighter all separate from one another seems like an exceedingly expensive and unwarranted approach………….I would say in a vacuum the STOVL variant might be viable as a stand alone approach, but in the case of the JSF, the STOVL was developed first, with the two other conventional models be developed sans the lift fan, well still benefiting from a near 80% commonality amongst the three variants.

As to a future bomber, well the USAF sees it differently………From an American perspective (And lesser extent, a Russian one) their bomber fleet brings a lot to the table in terms of flexibility in the nuclear strike, conventional interdiction, a standoff platform, reconnaissance and as demonstrated in both Afghanistan and Iraq (In a permissive air environment) a very effective combat air support platform when equipped with smart weapons………..I suppose the real debate will be if it’s going to eventually be manned or unmanned…….Now they do have a plan to replace their bomber force, but in the current fiscal environment, I doubt it will seriously be looked at for another several decades………Don’t be surprised if the B-2 and a much reworked B-52 are still flying near into the middle of this century.