F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

Eventually there will be……..contrast with the touted alternative, non stealth (4th generation) aircraft………

Yup, these fellows seem unaware that methods of shooting down aircraft keeps pace with the aircraft themselves...or...horrors...outpaces aircraft. By 1915, the first AA weapons were in use. Right about when the aircraft got a FF machine gun.

[Guest Derek L]

Yup, these fellows seem unaware that methods of shooting down aircraft keeps pace with the aircraft themselves...or...horrors...outpaces aircraft. By 1915, the first AA weapons were in use. Right about when the aircraft got a FF machine gun.

Indeed, luckily the West tends to be a generation or two ahead of the Eastern curve in terms of technological advancement, coupled with the fact that many “likely adversaries” are equipped with armaments a further generation behind current Eastern technologies……..The great equalizer, is when two adversaries are fielding armaments of equal advancement……..i.e. the Falklands War (Sea Dart vs. Exocet) or the Iran/Iraq war………Ultimately then it’s decided by training, tactics and luck.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup, these fellows seem unaware that methods of shooting down aircraft keeps pace with the aircraft themselves...or...horrors...outpaces aircraft. By 1915, the first AA weapons were in use. Right about when the aircraft got a FF machine gun.

Well hell, that's just part of racing flyin'! Y'all can save a lot of money by just buying re-engined F-105D Thunderchiefs and go balls to the wall. Don't come back from the mission if the target wasn't destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republic_F-105F_060928-F-1234S-017.jpg

[Guest Derek L]

Well hell, that's just part of racing flyin'! Y'all can save a lot of money by just buying re-engined F-105D Thunderchiefs and go balls to the wall. Don't come back from the mission if the target wasn't destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republic_F-105F_060928-F-1234S-017.jpg

Though mentioned prior, the “Thud” was the desired choice by the RCAF in the early 60s to fulfill our tactical nuclear strike commitments in Germany, which went to the Lawn Dart as historic………IMV, a “CF-105” would have been more viable then the Starfighters into the early 80s, especially once the nuclear strike requirement was changed to tactical support/Interdiction ……..Now a RCAF “CF-4E” would have been a whole other story…….

[DogOnPorch]

The F-105 has to be one of the finest aircraft ever made. A MiG killer in a pinch. But, man, did it carry a pile o' bombs. Route Pack 6, here we come.

[bush_cheney2004]

……IMV, a “CF-105” would have been more viable then the Starfighters into the early 80s, especially once the nuclear strike requirement was changed to tactical support/Interdiction …….

I can see why...that's what the 105 was originally designed to do. Damn thing had a bigger bomb load than a B-17 or B-24.

.Now a RCAF “CF-4E” would have been a whole other story…….

...good enough for Israel and Iran!

[DogOnPorch]

Well hell, that's just part of racing flyin'!

Indeed it was. And as F.G. Powers found out, a SAM can reach 60,000+. In 1914 before wing markings were large and obvious, most aircraft had to face regimental volley fire from both friend and foe alike. I guess that's when you learned how high a BE-2a can actually go...lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed it was. And as F.G. Powers found out, a SAM can reach 60,000+.

At first, seeing telephone poles flying towards you is startling, then I guess you just get use to it!

[DogOnPorch]

I can see why...that's what the 105 was originally designed to do. Damn thing had a bigger bomb load than a B-17 or B-24.

...good enough for Israel and Iran!

I was a big F-4 supporter for Canada. Still a damn fine aircraft in most roles. Plus, I was a huge Randy Cunningham, Willy Driscoll, Chappie James, Robin Olds (etc) fan. Great pilots.

[DogOnPorch]

At first, seeing telephone poles flying towards you is startling, then I guess you just get use to it!

Most had to fire blind in Nam due to WW activity, heh, heh.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was a big F-4 supporter for Canada. Still a damn fine aircraft in most roles. Plus, I was a huge Randy Cunningham, Willy Driscoll, Chappie James, Robin Olds (etc) fan. Great pilots.

To bad about Duke Cunningham...he is serving out his sentence in prison. But he can tell his fellow cons some great 'Nam stories!

The F-4 guzzled gas like a Cadillac Eldorado.

[DogOnPorch]

To bad about Duke Cunningham...he is serving out his sentence in prison. But he can tell his fellow cons some great 'Nam stories!

Shoulda stuck to MiG killin'.

The F-4 guzzled gas like a Cadillac Eldorado.

That's for sure. The Big Black Smoker when in AB. During Operation Bolo, they had to keep it slow to appear to be F-105s fully loaded. Fooled 'em...lol. Many MiGs lost that day.

[Guest Derek L]

I can see why...that's what the 105 was originally designed to do. Damn thing had a bigger bomb load than a B-17 or B-24.

...good enough for Israel and Iran!

Exactly, I suppose one can what if all day……..but here we go…….an alternate (IMV more viable) strategy, post Arrow cancellation, would have been to take the Voodoo’s as historic (~70 aircraft). Then in lieu of 200 Canadian produced Starfighters, ~100 Canadian produced “Thuds” & ~100 Canadian produced A-4s (Hello 5.5 degree flight deck for Bonnie in ’67). Then no CF-5 Freedom Fighters in the later 60s as historic, then instead of exchanging Voodoos in the early 70s, replace them with ~70 F-4Es for NORAD.

Then in the early 80s, instead of ~140 Hornets, 60-70 to replace the “Thuds” for NATO…….The A-4s carry on as is into the 90s, then during the defence cuts as historic, replace the Tutors, Silver Stars & Challengers, well putting the remainder in storage…….Late 90s, early 2000s, replace the F-4Es with ~50 Super Hornets (Original Hornets go to NORAD commitment), then in the 2020s the remaining original Hornets (from the 80s) are replaced with ~30-40 F-35s well the Super Bugs go to NORAD, ultimately replacing them with a 6th generation aircraft in the 2030s……….

There you go, put that in your pipe and smoke it! No massive aircraft replacement programs, no futile & expensive upgrade programs, all the while ensuring (a supporting) a small (but sustainable) Canadian aerospace industry and maintaining modern equipment for the military.

edit to add-----And Cheaper!!!

Edited April 22, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet.

and from that same, just released, U.S. Pentagon Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), dated Dec. 31, 2011:

The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay.

In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81

. While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark.

So a “useful” average, based on the inclusion of the two other costlier versions that we’re not purchasing, based on costing of LRIP aircraft (Of which we’re not purchasing) this year and last is a valid comparison for aircraft that we’re purchasing later this decade?

you ***-clown! If you have concerns over the APUC... then you shouldn't have mentioned it, hey? I'm simply responding to your initial reference, to your APUC costing reference! I'm simply providing you the real numbers from the Pentagon's own, just released, SAR. You must have thought the APUC had some significance, some bearing... you quoted it! In fact you quoted it, you bold-highlighted it, you underlined it!

You’re highlighting the APUC for low rate initial production aircraft purchased this year and last, when production costing is at it’s highest……..contrasted with the APUC (That I highlighted) during full production later this decade.

Put on the nose Bobo……..

no - absolutely not! Those two respective numbers have the same reference point... apply to the same reference period. The distinction is your quoted $109 million APUC per jet figure reflects "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars)... my quoted $137 million APUC per jet figure reflects "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program). You can keep your nose... Bobo! It's becoming very clear you don't know what you're talking about and... you're making it up as you go!

Fun with numbers eh?

yes, there appears to be some real creative/inventive number dicing/slicing going on, all around. The way numbers have been "managed/reduced" (reduced!!!) is by having the JSF program reduce procurement quantities through 2017 by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Quite clearly the U.S. Congress' emphatic "no mo money" hit home... forcing a push-out of costs to later years; albeit an additional driver was the reality of having to retrofit ongoing problem related design changes into production aircraft. So... easy peasey... just reduce how many are being made. But wait! Talk about a queue forming up. Let's see how JSF partner countries make out against the U.S. Airforce/Navy/Marines "when (if!)" ultimate production does finally ramp-up... uhhh... if it does! The latest U.S. GAO report states, "the JSF program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035".

[Guest Derek L]

you ***-clown! If you have concerns over the APUC... then you shouldn't have mentioned it, hey? I'm simply responding to your initial reference, to your APUC costing reference! I'm simply providing you the real numbers from the Pentagon's own, just released, SAR. You must have thought the APUC had some significance, some bearing... you quoted it! In fact you quoted it, you bold-highlighted it, you underlined it!

no - absolutely not! Those two respective numbers have the same reference point... apply to the same reference period. The distinction is your quoted $109 million APUC per jet figure reflects "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars)... my quoted $137 million APUC per jet figure reflects "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program). You can keep your nose... Bobo! It's becoming very clear you don't know what you're talking about and... you're making it up as you go!

Is this your quoted passage:

The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay. In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81. While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark.

Is this not a reference, as stated in the quote, of the three aircraft versions in 2012 & 2011?

And the source of said numbers? You state they’re from last year…….then you quote the recent blog posting by Mr Puglise, that references a Defence News post from last month, which states the APUC as ~109 million…….These, by and by, are both your sources, directly and indirectly……So which one of your sources is right and which one wrong?….Perhaps you should adjust the choke on your debating scatter gun to a smaller cone

yes, there appears to be some real creative/inventive number dicing/slicing going on, all around. The way numbers have been "managed/reduced" (reduced!!!) is by having the JSF program reduce procurement quantities through 2017 by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Quite clearly the U.S. Congress' emphatic "no mo money" hit home... forcing a push-out of costs to later years; albeit an additional driver was the reality of having to retrofit ongoing problem related design changes into production aircraft. So... easy peasey... just reduce how many are being made. But wait! Talk about a queue forming up. Let's see how JSF partner countries make out against the U.S. Airforce/Navy/Marines "when (if!)" ultimate production does finally ramp-up... uhhh... if it does! The latest U.S. GAO report states, "the JSF program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035".

Your point? And is this a further contradiction due to sources?

[waldo]

... just how good is the "stealthiness"? Any problems/concerns? Any F-35 'stealth killers' out there, hey?

Any defence has a counter. But, it's all about survivability these days. Planes and pilots are massively expensive so you don't want to lose even one. Anything that improves survivability is a good thing. In the modern combat environment, speed and maneuverability don't mean nearly as much as they did in the past. That SAM or AAM will go faster no matter your aircraft. So what's left?

Not being seen.

Eventually there will be……..contrast with the touted alternative, non stealth (4th generation) aircraft………

guys, guys... wadda bout that X-band/L-band thingee? What about those wiley Ruskies fitting their new SU-35S with L-band? And all those guys out there touting the SU-35S as the F-35 "stealth killer"? Have they all got it... wrong? Or, the "new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA", said to actually defeat the F-35's own X band stealth directly??? Comments... on the much hyped, much touted, F-35 stealth capability?

[waldo]

Perhaps you should adjust the choke on your debating scatter gun to a smaller cone

save yourself further embarrassment... along with the just released Pentagon SAR, check out the latest U.S. GAO report. Like I said, you're simply making it up as you go!

[Guest Derek L]

save yourself further embarrassment... along with the just released Pentagon SAR, check out the latest U.S. GAO report. Like I said, you're simply making it up as you go!

I assume this is your second reference to Mr Pugliese?

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/30/u-s-outlines-cost-of-f-35-that-canada-and-others-are-purchasing/

DND’s former ADM Materiel Alan Williams notes this about the F-35 cost information released Friday:

So his source is Mr Williams, the very same Mr Williams that signed the MOU in February 2002, in which there were specific requirements on project disclosure?

I asked this earlier of you (with no response), since Mr Williams has been out of Government for some time, how is he obtaining his “detailed” information recently?

Also how do they derive their “useful benchmark”, including two more expensive aircraft types that Canada is not purchasing?

Please explain Bobo Waldo.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

guys, guys... wadda bout that X-band/L-band thingee? What about those wiley Ruskies fitting their new SU-35S with L-band? And all those guys out there touting the SU-35S as the F-35 "stealth killer"? Have they all got it... wrong? Or, the "new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA", said to actually defeat the F-35's own X band stealth directly??? Comments... on the much hyped, much touted, F-35 stealth capability?

And which "guys" deemed the SU-35 the "Stealth Killer"? Context prior to comment partner

[DogOnPorch]

And which "guys" deemed the SU-35 the "Stealth Killer"? Context prior to comment partner

The SU-35, like all Russian machines, is capable but really only an upgrade from an earlier model (SU-27). This particular design is the Russian F-15 in certain ways. While the F-15 was a result of the MiG-25...which turned out to not be a dogfighter...the SU-27 (and the MiG-29) was/were result of the incredible performance of both the F-15 and the Navy's F-14. But, Russia always seems to have some R&D to produce a wide variety of aircraft at any one time. So duds tend to get canceled out by a parallel successful design. Examples of this go back to WW2 where Russia had several main front line fighter aircraft in production at the same time, as well as numerous experimental models. The MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7, I-153, I-16, I-17 and Lagg-1 all in 1941-42, for example. That's just single engine. The Pe-3 twin engine heavy fighter (like the German Bf-110) had limited success.

[waldo]

save yourself further embarrassment... along with the just released Pentagon SAR, check out the latest U.S. GAO report. Like I said, you're simply making it up as you go!

I assume this is your second reference to Mr Pugliese?

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/30/u-s-outlines-cost-of-f-35-that-canada-and-others-are-purchasing/

So his source is Mr Williams, the very same Mr Williams that signed the MOU in February 2002, in which there were specific requirements on project disclosure?

why, I do believe you're now in distraction mode... I accept your unconditional surrender on the APUC costing!

as for that Pugliese blog entry... good on ya, I told you it was only a few earlier. In any case, your reading/comprehension has apparently missed the salient point that the source is... the Pentagon SAR (just released). Your want to distract with "Mr. Williams" is quite telling - as Pugliese states in his opening sentence, "DND’s former ADM Materiel Alan Williams notes this about the F-35 cost information released Friday:"

Please explain Bobo Waldo.

you can keep wearing your clown face, hey?

[waldo]

guys, guys... wadda bout that X-band/L-band thingee? What about those wiley Ruskies fitting their new SU-35S with L-band? And all those guys out there touting the SU-35S as the F-35 "stealth killer"? Have they all got it... wrong? Or, the "new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA", said to actually defeat the F-35's own X band stealth directly??? Comments... on the much hyped, much touted, F-35 stealth capability?

The SU-35, like all Russian machines, is capable but really only an upgrade from an earlier model (SU-27). This particular design is the Russian F-15 in certain ways. While the F-15 was a result of the MiG-25...which turned out to not be a dogfighter...the SU-27 (and the MiG-29) was/were result of the incredible performance of both the F-15 and the Navy's F-14. But, Russia always seems to have some R&D to produce a wide variety of aircraft at any one time. So duds tend to get canceled out by a parallel successful design. Examples of this go back to WW2 where Russia had several main front line fighter aircraft in production at the same time, as well as numerous experimental models. The MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7, I-153, I-16, I-17 and Lagg-1 all in 1941-42, for example. That's just single engine. The Pe-3 twin engine heavy fighter (like the German Bf-110) had limited success.

a trip down your memory lane is all fine... I will note/highlight it doesn't address challenges to F-35 stealth capability.

[Guest Derek L]

The SU-35, like all Russian machines, is capable but really only an upgrade from an earlier model (SU-27). This particular design is the Russian F-15 in certain ways. While the F-15 was a result of the MiG-25...which turned out to not be a dogfighter...the SU-27 (and the MiG-29) was/were result of the incredible performance of both the F-15 and the Navy's F-14. But, Russia always seems to have some R&D to produce a wide variety of aircraft at any one time. So duds tend to get canceled out by a parallel successful design. Examples of this go back to WW2 where Russia had several main front line fighter aircraft in production at the same time, as well as numerous experimental models. The MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7, I-153, I-16, I-17 and Lagg-1 all in 1941-42, for example. That's just single engine. The Pe-3 twin engine heavy fighter (like the German Bf-110) had limited success.

In this mythical debate over the latest son of Flanker versus the F-35 I’ll say this, and one doesn’t require being a student of the late John Boyd to visualize said concept, if one takes out of the equation all the inherent force enablers/multipliers that favour the F-35 operators (EW,AWACS,AAR etc), discounts the more likely scenario of a BVR engagement by the F-35, it boils down to this:

The F-35 has a greater internal fuel capacity then the Flanker has internal and external combined, and the F-35, unlike the Flanker, has the added advantage of internal weapons carriage. Though the Sukhoi, as demonstrated in air shows, is rather agile, it does such performances clean, not in a combat configuration with external fuel tanks and weapons, so though the Flanker has a much larger wing area then the F-35, and when you couple in the weight of the two aircrafts, the much heavier Russian, becomes constrained by it’s own aircraft’s wing loading, in effect, negating it’s inherent agility………This says nothing of the F-35s own agility, which for obvious reasons, has yet to be released in the public arena other then it has tolerances exceeding 9+Gs when equipped with internal fuel and weapons…….

[Guest Derek L]

a trip down your memory lane is all fine... I will note/highlight it doesn't address challenges to F-35 stealth capability.

What challenges? Highlighted by whom?

[bush_cheney2004]

....There you go, put that in your pipe and smoke it! No massive aircraft replacement programs, no futile & expensive upgrade programs, all the while ensuring (a supporting) a small (but sustainable) Canadian aerospace industry and maintaining modern equipment for the military.

I like it! This all or nothing dependence on whatever the hell Americans are gonna do has to stop, including reliance on American Pentagon and GAO reports.