F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not sure why you are refering to me as "William", none the less, first off you make an airplane that doesn't crash. Second you make it so that it can crash safe.

Nuclear power is remarkably safer today than it was in the 1960's, especially among microreactors.

Also, we simply arn't living in the same nuclear reality for a Nuclear Powered Bomber that existed in the 1960's.

It is also easy to make a nuclear reactor crash proof or ejectionable.

You don't seem to understand crash safety for devices like black boxes, and or nuclear power systems, as well as the difference between 1960's large installation based nuclear plants versus small aircraft based systems.

Three mile island is an 800 MW faciliy, which is over 40 to 400 times the power output if not more than the microreactor that would be on the aircraft.

Understand that nuclear thrust is not power generative it uses nuclear heat to replace electric or petrocarbon fuel source exhaust propulsion.

That is compressed superheated oxygen and other gasses from the air itself. Meaning that while a conventional fuel supply can exist.. rotor or turbine based primary stage electric power can be used in combination with nuclear exhaust second stage as well as self feuling via air filtration and compression systems to allow scramjetting and wake riding.

Basically no fuel need apply. It makes the system much safer. In a crash like an ejection seat you can encase the reactor in crash proof aerogel or other foam ontop of a super hardened carbon composite shell for survival. the fuel itself can be deactivated in miliseconds. And all that remains is heat.. these "3 mile island scenarios would be impossible... but in the event of an explosion sure there could be some contamination.. but not a lot.. now if you intentionally armed it to cause contamination sure.

Perhaps a less than 20 crashes record, my gosh if the 60 f35's were to have that record on their one engine model that would be 1/3rd of Canada's airforce gone... at a cost of what 6 billion dollars in crashes.

One simple question:

If a nuclear powered aircraft is such a good idea William, why is it that nobody is building them?

As for the attrition rate for the F-35 in service, with a fleet of 65, over the course of their expected life, operating much the same profile as our current Hornet, it could be expected we’ll lose 10-15 aircraft through attrition……….Perhaps slightly less, due to conversion training taking place in the States.

And for the life of me, I don’t understand why you’re harping about a single engine……….Even with 4th generation aircraft, there is no greater loss rate in aircraft due to having only a single engine………Namely because the two major causes of engine failures in combat aircraft are fuel contamination or battle damage, and such causes will cause the loss of the aircraft regardless of the number of engines.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

yes because Chinese planes can reach Canada...

http://whitedwarf.egloos.com/m/3727379

They have 1 aircraft carrier...

this discounting the chinese ufos

He never said they could reach Canada……….But Chinese (Or Russian) aircraft could very likely be used by any future opponents we’re facing in combat overseas.

As to Chinese naval aviation, their current solitarily aircraft carrier is the first of many (domestically designed) planned………..A large fleet carrier’s sole purpose is power projection.

[login]

He never said they could reach Canada……….But Chinese (Or Russian) aircraft could very likely be used by any future opponents we’re facing in combat overseas.

As to Chinese naval aviation, their current solitarily aircraft carrier is the first of many (domestically designed) planned………..A large fleet carrier’s sole purpose is power projection.

Your going to fight overseas with Hornets when the Russians and Chinese have 5th Generation fighters?

The US is becoming Energy self sustaining, who needs the old world now?

http://news.xinhuane...c_131877402.htm

They are selling petro cans oil for 5$ a barrel in Syria, not sure the price in Libya.

Edited November 22, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Your going to fight overseas with Hornets when the Russians and Chinese have 5th Generation fighters?

No, you're the one that suggested we purchase Super Hornets and Rafales, in conjunction with the F-35 and your now mentioned Canadian designed nuclear powered aircraft…………

[dre]

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

No debt financing non-defense military expenditures is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

[dre]

Your going to fight overseas with Hornets when the Russians and Chinese have 5th Generation fighters?

Why the hell would we fight overseas at all?

[login]

Why the hell would we fight overseas at all?

thats a good point dre

[Guest Derek L]

Why the hell would we fight overseas at all?

What percentage of our international trade takes place outside of North America? As much as many seem to deny or not understand, “World Events” don’t take place in a vacuum.

[dre]

What percentage of our international trade takes place outside of North America? As much as many seem to deny or not understand, “World Events” don’t take place in a vacuum.

You dont need strike fighters to trade with people. If youre worried about economics the very last thing you are going to do is borrow 15 billion dollars and spend it on something that offers no return on investment.

[login]

You dont need strike fighters to trade with people. If youre worried about economics the very last thing you are going to do is borrow 15 billion dollars and spend it on something that offers no return on investment.

thats another good point, I can't imagine what would happen to Canada's economy if it were forced to produce its own goods. Suddently garbage dumps around canada would stagger their growth rates.

Edited November 22, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

You dont need strike fighters to trade with people. If youre worried about economics the very last thing you are going to do is borrow 15 billion dollars and spend it on something that offers no return on investment.

Why are wars fought?

As to return on investment, like I asked above, what percent of our trade comes/goes overseas? Isn’t international stability and the “Freedom of the Seas” in Canada’s best economic interest?

[dre]

Why are wars fought?

As to return on investment, like I asked above, what percent of our trade comes/goes overseas? Isn’t international stability and the “Freedom of the Seas” in Canada’s best economic interest?

Again you are assuming that trade will be reduced if we dont buy these planes, or that freedom of the seas will be impacted by whether or not Canada spends money on 5th generation strike fighters. living beyond our means is not in our economic interests at all, its one of the biggest threats to our economy.

[Guest Derek L]

Again you are assuming that trade will be reduced if we dont buy these planes, or that freedom of the seas will be impacted by whether or not Canada spends money on 5th generation strike fighters. living beyond our means is not in our economic interests at all, its one of the biggest threats to our economy.

What good is “Economic (and Political) Freedom” without an environment that is stable and allows participants to exchange goods freely?…………I’d assume you wouldn’t think our domestic economy would benefit without rule of law and the police to enforce said laws………What’s different on the international stage?

[login]

What good is “Economic (and Political) Freedom” without an environment that is stable and allows participants to exchange goods freely?…………I’d assume you wouldn’t think our domestic economy would benefit without rule of law and the police to enforce said laws………What’s different on the international stage?

Why are f 35's needed for free exchange again?

Don't their freighters come to Canada's ports?

Edited November 23, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Why are f 35's needed for free exchange again?

Don't their freighters come to Canada's ports?

The same reason our Hornets were in the Persian Gulf, FRY and Libya………….Come no William, don’t play silly bugger with me, for I’ll simple ask you, for what reason does Canada need Super Hornets, Rafales, the F-35 and “nuclear powered aircraft as per your suggestion.

[login]

The same reason our Hornets were in the Persian Gulf, FRY and Libya………….Come no William, don’t play silly bugger with me, for I’ll simple ask you, for what reason does Canada need Super Hornets, Rafales, the F-35 and “nuclear powered aircraft as per your suggestion.

I'm going to ask you stop referring to me as 'William'.

In regard to my rough plan - it is just a guideline, I'd still prefer Jets 100% made in canada with full Canadian rights.

As for why the mixture.

The f-18's are for pilots as well as reserve airforce call back capacity (if pilot numbers drop for whatever reason or callback is required removing the need to retrain). They are also relatively cheap and can be used for a wide range of missions.

The Rafael are for their supercruise and beyond sight guidance and other capacities, as well as being something to give Canada more French connections, to Balance out British and American defence procurements, as well as for political reasons. The Rafale is a versatile aircraft. I see this one as something that can be deployed to Europe or the Middle East or Africa, and potentially be more supported in France (or countries like the UAE etc.. that are also potentially procuring them) if Required, insuring that fluent french speaking pilots use this aircraft for interoperability with French Forces.

The F35 is for Norad interoperatiblity and for stealth operations, and for Joint operations as required.

The availability is another issue, I see f-18 deliveries perhaps being ideal if lumped in with US Navy orders. While it may take some time to roll out the Rafale. The f35 is also "sketchy" on delivery, as it isn't even a complete package.

I like 3 models because it allows non sole dependence on one model and leaves the enemy geussing. Example throwing in some f-18s with some f35s to further mask force composition. having a rafale to supliment f35 capabilities or f18 capacitities etc..

As for the nuclear strike bomber. I think that it allows Canada to have force projection it wouldn't otherwise have. The aircraft range is tremendous, and it is versatile in many ways. It is an ace up the sleeve. Having DEWS onboard an aircraft to take out incoming threats or even arming it with EW and c&c capacities ability to control drones or otherwise puts something out there that is way better than anything else going in terms of operational range and in air time. It could also be used as a conventional bomber if needed, or troop transport for special forces or "robot warriors". I see the robot warrior aspect, that is small killer robots as an element not yet very greatly utilized. Inserting robots to wreak havok on the ground or precision sabotage is something that hasn't had much public light but if you can drop a robot to take out communication lines or a facility through exact demo placements as opposed to dropping a bomb and potentially killing civllians, the robot warrior drop seems to have more usability. Eg. drop 100 robots or 100 bomblets. The 100 precision strikes or coordinated assault capacities are tremendous and can be more efficient.

None the less I'm not confident in the f35 to be the sole jet for the next 20 years. I think technology is changing too fast for that to be the case. I think Canada will end up with something that is not as good as its rivals such as China.

Edited November 23, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

I'm going to ask you stop referring to me as 'William'.

In regard to my rough plan - it is just a guideline, I'd still prefer Jets 100% made in canada with full Canadian rights.

As for why the mixture.

The f-18's are for pilots as well as reserve airforce call back capacity (if pilot numbers drop for whatever reason or callback is required removing the need to retrain). They are also relatively cheap and can be used for a wide range of missions.

The Rafael are for their supercruise and beyond sight guidance and other capacities, as well as being something to give Canada more French connections, to Balance out British and American defence procurements, as well as for political reasons. The Rafale is a versatile aircraft. I see this one as something that can be deployed to Europe or the Middle East or Africa, and potentially be more supported in France (or countries like the UAE etc.. that are also potentially procuring them) if Required, insuring that fluent french speaking pilots use this aircraft for interoperability with French Forces.

The F35 is for Norad interoperatiblity and for stealth operations, and for Joint operations as required.

The availability is another issue, I see f-18 deliveries perhaps being ideal if lumped in with US Navy orders. While it may take some time to roll out the Rafale. The f35 is also "sketchy" on delivery, as it isn't even a complete package.

I like 3 models because it allows non sole dependence on one model and leaves the enemy geussing. Example throwing in some f-18s with some f35s to further mask force composition. having a rafale to supliment f35 capabilities or f18 capacitities etc..

As for the nuclear strike bomber. I think that it allows Canada to have force projection it wouldn't otherwise have. The aircraft range is tremendous, and it is versatile in many ways. It is an ace up the sleeve. Having DEWS onboard an aircraft to take out incoming threats or even arming it with EW and c&c capacities ability to control drones or otherwise puts something out there that is way better than anything else going in terms of operational range and in air time. It could also be used as a conventional bomber if needed, or troop transport for special forces or "robot warriors". I see the robot warrior aspect, that is small killer robots as an element not yet very greatly utilized. Inserting robots to wreak havok on the ground or precision sabotage is something that hasn't had much public light but if you can drop a robot to take out communication lines or a facility through exact demo placements as opposed to dropping a bomb and potentially killing civllians, the robot warrior drop seems to have more usability. Eg. drop 100 robots or 100 bomblets. The 100 precision strikes or coordinated assault capacities are tremendous and can be more efficient.

None the less I'm not confident in the f35 to be the sole jet for the next 20 years. I think technology is changing too fast for that to be the case. I think Canada will end up with something that is not as good as its rivals such as China.

Is that too informal? Do you prefer Mr Ashley? Sorry if I offended you.

[Guest Derek L]

Just wanted to bring back this gem from a couple of years ago, posted by another former member with a surprisingly similar view as logins:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17363&st=15

William Ashley Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:37 AM

Because when you pay you should have the money in your pocket not pulling it out of someone elses. Also if you spend money you don't have you pay more anyway. What is the repayment timeline to pay off the bad debt - apparently up to 2015 and beyond Canada will be running atleast a 20 billion dollar year deficit - what is the interest rate on the money being borrowed to pay for these?

I'm not against defence procurements - acutually there are one of the federal government of Canada's highest priorities. But fiscal responsibility and accountable government is the #1 responsibility, and they are spending money they don't have.

I just noticed this article today:

http://www.theglobea...article1775575/

and it puts the pricetag back down to about $75 million - but we need to look at the price - I'm guessing jet fuel isn't included with the life - and we have to look at how many usable HOURS - when you say lifetime replacement - what is the lifespand of the aircraft --- how many flight hours are included. We look at other military aircraft -t hose limits were exceeded and the things started falling out of the skies on their own along wiht their crew

Raptors for instance have more flight hours according to this blog :

http://jineshjkviews...lems-force.html

I look at the defpro website and aI see the number 8000 = next to hours.

8000 hours of flight.

http://www.defpro.co...ly/details/588/

Say these things fly 5 hours a week that works out to 30 years. But how many flight hours will the things see in war or conflict - what is the use schedule on these things - is that part replacement for the service life or indefinately, - what happens in the company goes bust in 10 years? Who is offering up the warranty?

How good is that warranty if their factory or offices get bombed out?

BTW at under 80 million each I support the deal. Only because it really is needed adn there is no other aircraft ready for rollout. -- you could always hire the other contender if they can make it for less.... there is nothing stopping us contractin the other contender in the initial bid to make some jets.. but lets get serious that likely ain't gonna happen.

There are cheaper alternatives at about 3 million a jet --- but this isn't likely.. but this is the stuff places like brazil and venezuela are using. and they rate higher in military strength than canada.

There are also cheap stealth mods - including one that russia uses on its steal jets for a few million.

A low budget alternative could run under 10 million and meet canadas needs - fact is these jets are slower than the raptor allowing raptor intercept.

over mach 2 for the raptor vs mach 1.9 for the f35

You have to see the joke of the hawk holding the lightening bolts to get the joke here.

The raptor I think also has more flight hours.

http://2.bp.blogspot.../s400/Eagle.jpg

Of course seeing with 911.. is intercept really or was it possible? Is norad even up to the act - or is there something more at play.. hmm?

What isthat? I support the program but I can't stand the dependence on foreign procurement. Also I don't like the delivery timeline.

Oh the other major factor years till technological obsolecence? When are these 6th generation fighters coming out - or adequette defences against the things to turn them into shreded metal instead of lofty boats.

THe J-XX is costing China about the same apparently - maybe a little less.

http://www.defenceta...quirments-7108/

http://www.janes.com...71024_2_n.shtml

Human bodies have issues with hypersonics..

Skynet is upon us

John, where are you jon?

I think someone needs to give Harper a Giant federal credit card and charge him the interest personally same with any other federal cabinet minister who supports spending on borrowed money.

Canada is appraoching a billion dollars of debt...

buy the jets but find the money somewhere.

By the way hypersonic aircraft have been in testing publically for about 5 years now - there is genreally a 20 year development timeframe befor the things hit the shelves so we should see hypersonic x projects being serialed around 2025

This will totally make any detectable flight system obsolete unless it has faster longer range missles. Or other system.

I think that we can't really see that these things will have any use beyond 2030 in any real engagement situation that is a 20 year usable life - minus the 8 years before we can use them so that is a 12 year use life. Or about 1 billion dollars a year for the 65 aircraft.

Break out the tiedie but I can't imagine technological inadquecy by that year - that is 10 years after we start getting brain chip implants turning our brains into computers --- (intel has brian chips in store - they already exist http://www.google.ca...9e6edf87023 at least 13 implants- there are also headsets that do some of the same things) fly by brainwire isn't even integrated into these things is it?

http://www.masshight...rbine-tech.html

next generation..

current cutting edge tech Mach 5+ (mach 7 mach 8 mach 9?)

how fast is a scram jet - mach 10? how fast is a peacekeeper mach 12 no sorry mach 23? How is that.. how fast is mach 23?

24100 km/h

how fast are these planes

2327.5836 km/h

that being our fastest propellants are more than 10x as fast.. what are we defending against - what do we need to defend - what sorts of missions can Canad expect - are these stealth technologies adequette when we start using them in 8 years?

Is this able to engage a J-XX or http://english.pravd...h_generation-0/

If we can bomb out enemy defence infrastructure why can't theirs? Is this to assume NATO will always have intelligence superiority over china? 7 people blew up a wall to the Pentagon after taking flight lessons and boarding a comercial plane. Something was firing high powered rounds at its walls last week. - what do you think the military of a foreign nation could do?

BTW the we don't know how many bullets thing there were, is quite disturbing, since you can plan explosives into things.. they could fire explosives onto those very hard windows.

I have no beleif the wests (*cough) the USs traditional enemies are way behind in technology - their enegineers are very very smart. There isn't much of a threshold, and China for instance has huge human resource potential. It is a general fact Canada is forced to tag along to any real US engagement because it shares the same airspace. So while they arn't Canada's enemies they are Canada's potential opposition in the event of a real US war against a developed country (the US tends to fight undeveloped countries -Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Cuba, parts of africa Other small latin american countries Iraq, Afghanistan (SEE THE EXPORT BAN LIST). It hasn't really attempted to attack a poweruful nation in a real war such as Russia or China - although it has commited acts of war against them - but they also commited acts of war against India also, and India being a commonwealth country isn't traditionally an US enemy state - heck a large chunk of NASA is Indian - and India is a counter weight to China. But this is where teh balance is.. or is it.. or are these arms these planes there so they can attack an undeveloped country cause we all know in 10 years they will not be nearly as good as they were today especially against SCO block countries - including Iran.

example: http://www.airforce-...009fighter.aspx

It seems likely hte US procurement long term plan implenents oversight of lower cost drones (less human assisting components) in place of manned flights to address human stress threshold (or even AI preprogramed short duration missions)

v2/(2s). engagement period? The faster it is the longer it takes humans to get there... machines do not suffer the same fate.

16 g max threshold before death.

That is max accelaration of what 560 km/h / second? meaning max speed in what 10 seconds? before death or perhaps about a minute to 3 in relatively non fatal conditions or perhaps up to 10 to 12 seconds for psotive 9g actions. IN a 9 minute mission how much does 12 seconds mean in the difference between success and failure?

Substitute the Raptor for Rafale and throw some nuclear powered aircraft in for good measure and presto.

[login]

Just wanted to bring back this gem from a couple of years ago, posted by another former member with a surprisingly similar view as logins:

http://www.mapleleaf...pic=17363&st=15

Substitute the Raptor for Rafale and throw some nuclear powered aircraft in for good measure and presto.

While I agree with some of that I think you are stretching it a bit. I really don't see how my position is equal to that.

Smart guy though he was dead on about the conservative debt being over 20 billion, so far. But I think that billion dollar debt comment, is probably suppose to be a trillion dollars.

Look at this, the Liberals sole sourced project may be revisited..

http://news.national...er-jet-sources/

Derek,if you wern't buying the F35 what would you buy?

Edited November 24, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

While I agree with some of that I think you are stretching it a bit. I really don't see how my position is equal to that.

Smart guy though he was dead on about the conservative debt being over 20 billion, so far. But I think that billion dollar debt comment, is probably suppose to be a trillion dollars.

Look at this, the Liberals sole sourced project may be revisited..

http://news.national...er-jet-sources/

Derek,if you wern't buying the F35 what would you buy?

Nothing, for making another purchase of similar magnitude of the F-35 in terms of cost, well offering only a marginal expansion of capability over current capabilities into only about the mid to late 2020s is a waste of money and would only be done for political expediency.

If we as a nation deem we can’t afford the price tag associated with fixed wing combat aircraft, we should get out of the business like New Zealand or Ireland, and surrender a partial aspect of our sovereignty to the Americans in the same regards as New Zealand and Ireland have done with Australia and the United Kingdom……………..Anything else is window dressing, just as the Government requesting “brochures” of other aircraft is………….

[bush_cheney2004]

....If we as a nation deem we can’t afford the price tag associated with fixed wing combat aircraft, we should get out of the business like New Zealand or Ireland, and surrender a partial aspect of our sovereignty to the Americans in the same regards as New Zealand and Ireland have done with Australia and the United Kingdom……………..Anything else is window dressing, just as the Government requesting “brochures” of other aircraft is………….

Methinks you are right about this and the timeline for such surrender is short. We can connect the dots over a longer timeline of reduced capability and mission capable relevance. The last straw was an admission that Canada could not sustain a single squadron of CF-188s in Afghanistan....it was a war too far.

[Guest Derek L]

Methinks you are right about this and the timeline for such surrender is short. We can connect the dots over a longer timeline of reduced capability and mission capable relevance. The last straw was an admission that Canada could not sustain a single squadron of CF-188s in Afghanistan....it was a war too far.

That’s not exactly true………we didn’t have a squadron of Hornets to send, since the bulk of ours were going through our equivalent of the center barrel upgrade program………Of course why we delayed said upgrade a decade and didn’t have enough aircraft in general is solely our own fault.

[bush_cheney2004]

That’s not exactly true………we didn’t have a squadron of Hornets to send,....

Fair enough, but it only underscores the larger point of a longer term policy. I'm not sure the term "fault" applies; instead it may have been a purposeful strategy, also seen for failed rotary winged aircraft procurements. If F-35's were new cars at the dealership, Canada at this point would just be a tire kicker.

[Guest Derek L]

Fair enough, but it only underscores the larger point of a longer term policy. I'm not sure the term "fault" applies; instead it may have been a purposeful strategy, also seen for failed rotary winged aircraft procurements. If F-35's were new cars at the dealership, Canada at this point would just be a tire kicker.

This is very true, in that Canada doesn’t have a sound defence procurement strategy………..Take the new shipbuilding program, that just happens to play a great effect on Opposition ridings……..You won’t hear a peep over it even though the total cost, when the same methodology encompassing through life costs is factored in, will see a Frigate having the same price tag as a Ford class CVN (Sans through life and cost of air wing), patrol craft equalling in cost to a Virginia SNN etc etc…………..

Just the “sail away cost” (If this term has never been used prior I now want credit) of one of our future frigates will be greater then that of a much more capable Burke DDG……….Unfortunately most Canadians either don’t care and/or don’t understand economies of scale, and the fact that are politicians are greater pork herders then most of those in your Congress.

And the Helicopters………….Don’t even get me started………….PM Chrétien expended so much political capital on the “Cadillac’s” that even when the manufacturer offered to rework the deal to include “green airframes” and incorporate the Sea Things already antiquated sonar suite he had to reject them and the EH-101 had to wait until a change of Prime Minister to be included in the MHP process………Only to be rejected for a bastard fleet of Sikorsky Cyclones (That are already years late and over budget)………

[Guest Derek L]

This is very true, in that Canada doesn’t have a sound defence procurement strategy………..Take the new shipbuilding program, that just happens to play a great effect on Opposition ridings……..You won’t hear a peep over it even though the total cost, when the same methodology encompassing through life costs is factored in, will see a Frigate having the same price tag as a Ford class CVN (Sans through life and cost of air wing), patrol craft equalling in cost to a Virginia SNN etc etc…………..

Just the “sail away cost” (If this term has never been used prior I now want credit) of one of our future frigates will be greater then that of a much more capable Burke DDG……….Unfortunately most Canadians either don’t care and/or don’t understand economies of scale, and the fact that are politicians are greater pork herders then most of those in your Congress.

An opinion piece on why John Ivison feels we won’t get the F-35, from yesterday’s National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/29/john-ivison-f-35-purchase-in-jeopardy-with-upcoming-kpmg-report-on-full-cost-of-fighter-jet/

Though I obviously disagree with Mr Ivison’s commentary on defence maters ( I do enjoy his more political pieces) he does make two points that I’ve been harping on here for months:

1st point:

Defence sources suggest that, were the same criteria applied to the widely admired $33-billion shipbuilding procurement process for the navy, costs for it would soar to over $100-billion.

A I’ve said numerous times, when the same accounting methodology is applied to the Navy and Coast Guards entire fleet renewal, the final figure will soar well past 100 billion (Of today’s) dollars……..When operating cost include personal costs, as the Auditor General’s figures do when calculating F-35 costs, and we contrast this with the navy, we should see figures soar when calculating the Shipbuilding Strategy. For instance:

The personal directly involved in operating a single Tactical Fighter Squadron of 24 F-35s will equal roughly the personal associated with crewing just two of the RCN’s future Frigates……..We’ll operate just two Tactical Fighter Squadrons of F-35s, but 15 future surface combatants, 6-8 patrol craft and two tankers……..Or operating cost like fuel. One TFS of F-35s will use in one week of sustained combat operations, similar amounts of fuel as a single frigate within the same timeframe, as such, if we deployed a single RCN task group of 3 frigates and a tanker for one week, the personal costs will equal that of deploying our entire planned fleet of two TFS of F-35s and double the costs in terms of fuel.

As well, critics say, KPMG will not provide a comparator estimate for the F-35’s rivals, making it a “meaningless factoid,” in the words of one person familiar with the process.

This is also a valid point that I make and is often ignored by many……….For example, the Eurofighter currently costs more per plane then what the fifth batch of low rate initial production F-35s will cost, let alone final production aircraft what we’ll be buying………..Or look at the Australians, the RAAF paid nearly 7 billion dollars for 24 Superhornets and twenty years of support………..

I truly hope Public Works garners other manufacturers cost comparisons so such figures will become “public knowledge” and put the F-35 costs into context…………It’s telling that DoD has estimated, and reported by the CBO, that operating the current legacy airframes (F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, A-10) that will be replaced by the F-35 out into the 2050s will cost nearly four times the projected costs of operating the F-35.…..

As I said prior, the only serious flaw I find with the entire F-35 program is that they performed piss poorly in public relations and have allowed bloggers and other aircraft manufactures lobbyists to define the narrative………Still, many have demonstrated the lack of critical thinking skills required to make the leap as to why those that actually know the “facts” of the entire F-35 program, Government, militaries and the manufactures, still fully support the program.

If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost – to $137-million from $69-million a decade ago, for early versions of the fighter, according to U.S. government figures – may make it cost-prohibitive. U.S. lawmakers, teetering on the brink of a fiscal cliff, may yet look at the project as an easy target for savings, reducing the number of planes being ordered from the current 2,443, thus increasing the unit cost for everyone else.

And released less then an hour after Mr Ivisons piece:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE8AT04420121130

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told an investor conference that the service remained committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which alone accounts for 15 percent of the service's annual investment spending, and had no plans to revise its projected purchase of 1,763 of the new radar-evading jets.

Talk about missing the boat