F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Norwegian government: Norwegian authorities have calculated two prices for aircraft purchase. Purchase price and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years.

and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping' $40 Billion... $15 Billion more than the original estimate - for only 52 F-35s over only a 30 year life-cycle.

Man, did they ever blow their initial estimate! Sure hope they hold whoever is responsible for the screw up accountable.

now that we've dispensed with the imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", my impression is that Canada isn't privy to any special pricing unique/distinct from other JSF partners (I stand to be corrected)... in this Norwegian example, strictly looking at acquisition costs, the original Norwegian cost estimate was $12 Billion for only 52 F-35... and somehow... Canada's F-35 acquisition cost for 65 F-35s was quoted by Harper Conservatives at only $9 Billion. Norway: $12 Billion for 52 F-35s... Canada: $9 Billion for 65 F-35s. Is there a problem here?

[DogOnPorch]

I agree with the rest of what you say, but both the Eurofighter and Rafale have a larger combat radius than the F-35A, or even the C, I think.

Both the Eurofighter and Rafale are older than they look. Concieved in the mid-1980s. Like I said...I'd like Canada to have the best.

[cybercoma]

now that we've dispensed with the imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", my impression is that Canada isn't privy to any special pricing unique/distinct from other JSF partners (I stand to be corrected)... in this Norwegian example, strictly looking at acquisition costs, the original Norwegian cost estimate was $12 Billion for only 52 F-35... and somehow... Canada's F-35 acquisition cost for 65 F-35s was quoted by Harper Conservatives at only $9 Billion. Norway: $12 Billion for 52 F-35s... Canada: $9 Billion for 65 F-35s. Is there a problem here?

BOGO! Duh!

[Boges]

Both the Eurofighter and Rafale are older than they look. Concieved in the mid-1980s. Like I said...I'd like Canada to have the best.

Why don't we just order a few SU-35's from Putin.

[cybercoma]

now that we've dispensed with the imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", my impression is that Canada isn't privy to any special pricing unique/distinct from other JSF partners (I stand to be corrected)... in this Norwegian example, strictly looking at acquisition costs, the original Norwegian cost estimate was $12 Billion for only 52 F-35... and somehow... Canada's F-35 acquisition cost for 65 F-35s was quoted by Harper Conservatives at only $9 Billion. Norway: $12 Billion for 52 F-35s... Canada: $9 Billion for 65 F-35s. Is there a problem here?

Fantino jumped all over that one. You see... there's different ways of doing accounting, depending on what country you're from. That's Norwegian math, so it adds up differently.

Julian Fantino, the associate defence minister, told a House of Commons committee Thursday that "each country has its own separate and distinct formula" for calculating how much they'll spend on each aircraft.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111201/julian-fantino-commons-committee-f35-costs-norway-canada-111201/#ixzz1rlmaKcto

You can't make stuff up this stupid.

[DogOnPorch]

Why don't we just order a few SU-35's from Putin.

A few posters did mention Russian planes in one of these theads while overlooking the obvious problems with such a purchace.

[Boges]

A few posters did mention Russian planes in one of these theads while overlooking the obvious problems with such a purchace.

No Shit.

Mitsubishi should re-introduce the Zero.

[Smallc]

Both the Eurofighter and Rafale are older than they look. Concieved in the mid-1980s. Like I said...I'd like Canada to have the best.

Oh, I think the F-35A with C modifications is the best bet, for sure. I just think we should be getting 100 and upping the combat squadrons to 3

[DogOnPorch]

No Shit.

Mitsubishi should re-introduce the Zero.

To most posters here, I'm sure a jet is a jet is a jet. At airshows...even the old ones are LOUD. But, this isn't buying new lawn chairs. While getting the Chinese knock-off lawn chairs rather than a well crafted set might seem prudent, in the world of air combat, 2nd best = dead. Thus the lessons of Bloody April 1917 and Bekaa Valley 1982...which numerous posters here claimed were irrelevant. Shows you they'd gladly send young folks up in crates like that...no problem.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, I think the F-35A with C modifications is the best bet, for sure. I just think we should be getting 100 and upping the combat squadrons to 3

Yes...65 is a joke for a country like Canada.

[waldo]

Yes...65 is a joke for a country like Canada.

apparently only 4 CF-18s were deployed in the Libyan bomb-fest... that did "ramp-up" to 18 for the 3-month Bosniapalooza. A couple of get-sum's over a couple of decades - and you want... more... more than 65!

[waldo]

That's Norwegian math, so it adds up differently.

You can't make stuff up this stupid.

Norwegian math!!!

[Argus]

Norwegian government: Norwegian authorities have calculated two prices for aircraft purchase. Purchase price and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years.

and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping' $40 Billion... $15 Billion more than the original estimate - for only 52 F-35s over only a 30 year life-cycle.

I find it interesting that Norway is buying 52 fighters to defend it's air space. Canada, whose population is about 7 times higher, is only buying 65 to defend airspace that is 30 times larger.

And still the opposition screams that the Tories are being spendthrifts and giving in to the military by buying them anything they want. Do you really think the CAF asked for a mere 65 aircraft?

So why can Norway, population 4.8 million, a tidily run Scandinavian country, afford these jets, while Canada, according to some of the Left, can't possibly afford the same number plus 12?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Oh, I think the F-35A with C modifications is the best bet, for sure. I just think we should be getting 100 and upping the combat squadrons to 3

I think we should be getting 128, same as we had for the F18s. One of the main planks in the Tory election platform over the last twenty five years has been increasing the size of the military. I haven't seen that happen.

[Guest Derek L]

just saying, what? Oh... not withstanding your stated, "no misgivings", if not you, others in this thread have really trumpeted the, "we can't rely on the Americans" theme.

Look back a couple posts:

And this demonstrates the inherent benefits of being in such relationship with the United States, a relationship that they expect us to reciprocate (to an extent). I have no misgivings, that when required, part time US Airmen, provide cover to Canada’s west coast and third largest city.

I think very few recognise the contribution to our National Defence the Americans make……….If not for them, we couldn’t have retired our CF-5 fleet in the early 90s and only upgrade 1/3 rd of our original purchase of Hornets ten years ago……….Without them there Guardsmen (and women), me might be looking at purchase of 120 aircraft, not 65.

by the by... why the need for a "fighter escort"? To shoot the passenger plane down... over a bomb threat?

The 9/11 hijackers also claimed to have bombs…..

[Smallc]

Yes...65 is a joke for a country like Canada.

Shrinking airforces are thereform forr western democracies, it seems. Australia, who were to buy 100, will probably buy only 80. Denmark and the Netherlands are both downsizing. Ditto for the UK and Italy.

That said, I'm up for spending $15B for 100 jets and infrastructure.

Argus, we had 138. We're farming out training, so we don't need that many for what we has before.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

apparently only 4 CF-18s were deployed in the Libyan bomb-fest...

6 + 1 spare. That allows two to be deployable at all times, with two more available some of the time. We couldn't deploy 18 anymore and meet out NORAD obligations. We could probably do 12 for a while, 6 indefinitely. That won't change for the F-35 as ther will still be 48 jets in combat squadrons. If we had 3 combat squadrons, we could deploy 24, and still have as many in Canada as we do now, meeting all of our obligations. It would allow permanent forward deployments to Goose Bay, Comox, and Inuvik as well.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Smallc

[Wilber]

the point was, if you have UAVs up you're... already there... and your monitoring/coordination concerns would be addressed. The civilian reference wasn't presuming on "shopping around" - the point was, there are 'civilian equivalencies', particularly in that I don't interpret the urgency you seem to suggest is there with a phoned in bomb-threat to LAX. Urgency? Why? In any case, in this ramp-up to a supposed debate on "defense policy", it would seem to me a player in that policy review, a big player, should be UAVs for reconnaissance of our coastlines/Arctic.

I'm not against UAV's for surveillance but that is not what we have combat aircraft for. If you were out over the Pacific as a passenger on an aircraft that had just received a bomb threat, you might have a sense of urgency. What civilian equivalencies are you referring to? Be specific. If we buy a couple of G4's just to escort aircraft in trouble, the next thing you will be bitching about is the fact they are being used for other purposes as well.

How are you going to escort an airliner in trouble if it falls out of the sky trying to fly as slow as the UAV.

[Guest Derek L]

keyboard warriors!

You think one state spying on another’s defence programs is a new concept?

[DogOnPorch]

apparently only 4 CF-18s were deployed in the Libyan bomb-fest... that did "ramp-up" to 18 for the 3-month Bosniapalooza. A couple of get-sum's over a couple of decades - and you want... more... more than 65!

I want the F-22...but it ain't happening. Yes, 65 aircraft is way too few a number for a country the size of Canada. No matter your pet UN/NATO/Marvel Comics bombing projects overseas...which I have no interest in Canada participating in. Go volunteer yourself if you wish to install more Muslim Brotherhood chapters around the globe.

Edited April 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

the point was, if you have UAVs up you're... already there... and your monitoring/coordination concerns would be addressed. The civilian reference wasn't presuming on "shopping around" - the point was, there are 'civilian equivalencies', particularly in that I don't interpret the urgency you seem to suggest is there with a phoned in bomb-threat to LAX. Urgency? Why? In any case, in this ramp-up to a supposed debate on "defense policy", it would seem to me a player in that policy review, a big player, should be UAVs for reconnaissance of our coastlines/Arctic.

In addition to Wiber’s points, no UAVs (yet) are allowed to fly in non restricted airspace and none (yet) are armed with air to air missiles, air search/fire control radars……..To have that, you’ll require an aircraft the size of the F-35.…….

[Wilber]

So either you don't account for it at all and start from zero or you at the very least make an educate estimate. I would rather they take into account at least some amount of those costs. In any case, it doesn't matter what I would rather. It's standard accounting practice these days and it's the rules according to the Treasury Board.

The opposition is the government in waiting, I'f they're so smart, let them come up with an estimate. If they gain power, they will be calling the shots so surely they will know exactly what these aircraft will be used for over the next twenty or thirty years. How many conflicts they will be involved in. How many smart bombs and other munitions will be consumed. Let them figure out an hourly operating cost when the difference between patrolling at altitude and low level combat is about four times as much fuel and much harder on engines and airframes. They will know exactly, right.

You'll have your precious estimate alright but you might as well wipe your backside with it for all the good it will be. Any resemblance between it and reality will be purely accidental.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree with the rest of what you say, but both the Eurofighter and Rafale have a larger combat radius than the F-35A, or even the C, I think.

Negative Ghostrider……The Typhoon and Riff-Raff have a similar combat radius, with external fuel (tanks), as the F-35 neat (and stealth).

[DogOnPorch]

Box of toothpicks for pilot's mess: $1.99 x 12 x 30 years.

[Smallc]

Negative Ghostrider……The Typhoon and Riff-Raff have a similar combat radius, with external fuel (tanks), as the F-35 neat (and stealth).

Sorry, just being a Wikipedia warrior.