F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Derek 2.0]

You like to quote Lock Mart's (hopeful) projections. Take a look at other possibly more sober ideas.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY2016_Weapons.pdf

And what is your point? Are you suggesting that the DoD's 2016 planned purchase of 57 LRIP F-35s (including F-35B and C models), including spares, support and funds allocated to R&D, for ~$11 billion is a bad thing? Our own Government budgeted ~$15 billion for the procurement of 65 (cheaper) production F-35As, so your link would suggest that our Governments budgeted amount from several years ago is aligned with current program funding and will remain on budget with our planned production purchase.

Thanks for proving my point.

And as to Kuwait:

http://ottawacitizen...pen-for-a-while

What of it? Your link is dated and incorrect, but mentions a purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $3 Billion, but as it turned out, Kuwait (as I demonstrated from this Summer's purchase) ended up paying $3 billion for just 28 Super Hornets......

Thanks for confirming the reduction in pricing of the F-35 versus the increase in pricing of the Super Hornet........

[On Guard for Thee]

And what is your point? Are you suggesting that the DoD's 2016 planned purchase of 57 LRIP F-35s (including F-35B and C models), including spares, support and funds allocated to R&D, for ~$11 billion is a bad thing? Our own Government budgeted ~$15 billion for the procurement of 65 (cheaper) production F-35As, so your link would suggest that our Governments budgeted amount from several years ago is aligned with current program funding and will remain on budget with our planned production purchase.

Thanks for proving my point.

What of it? Your link is dated and incorrect, but mentions a purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $3 Billion, but as it turned out, Kuwait (as I demonstrated from this Summer's purchase) ended up paying $3 billion for just 28 Super Hornets......

Thanks for confirming the reduction in pricing of the F-35 versus the increase in pricing of the Super Hornet........

You have a very interesting concept of math it seems. Did you actually compare the gaps in costs or just flog some more of the Lock Mart pablum? None of your post was confirmed.

[Smallc]

ended up paying $3 billion for just 28 Super Hornets......

So for the $16B we have set aside for acquisition, using your math, we could buy 150 Super Hornets....doesn't help your case much.

[Derek 2.0]

You have a very interesting concept of math it seems. Did you actually compare the gaps in costs or just flog some more of the Lock Mart pablum? None of your post was confirmed.

No, just a good foundation in it:

In 2014 DoD paid ~$7.5 billion for 29 LRIP F-35s and spares

In 2015 DoD paid ~$8.5 billion for 38 LRIP F-35s and spares

In 2016 DoD will pay ~$11 billion for 57 LRIP F-35 and spares

Kuwait paid $3 billion for 28 Super Hornets through a DoD FMS agreement, that since 1991 has seen the various branches of the US military maintain Kuwaiti aircraft in exchange for basing rights for US Forces..........What is also telling, form the 2016 budget request, the Americans will no longer be purchasing the Super Hornet (or the Growler) for itself or any other nations through FMS agreements......

[Derek 2.0]

So for the $16B we have set aside for acquisition, using your math, we could buy 150 Super Hornets....doesn't help your case much.

Ahhh no, it does, as Kuwait, like numerous other nations that benefit from US military aide, only pay the purchase list price......the Kuwaiti air force has been maintained by the United States Navy since 1991.

But thanks for coming out.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ahhh no, it does, as Kuwait, like numerous other nations that benefit from US military aide, only pay the purchase list price......the Kuwaiti air force has been maintained by the United States Navy since 1991.

But thanks for coming out.

Well maybe the US can maintain our air force and make up the difference between Lock Mart projections and actual costs. Oh but then there are those exploding engines and lack of maneuverability, and of course white paint for our fuel trucks so the fuel doesn't get too hot. Naw, let's just buy something else.

[Canada_First]

Canada has responsibility to NORAD and must fulfill it's obligations to the defence of N American airspace.

The Super Hornet is already outdated.

I don't know which is best but I'd like one of the 5th gen aircraft. We must keep pace with the world.

[segnosaur]

Well maybe the US can maintain our air force and make up the difference between Lock Mart projections and actual costs. Oh but then there are those exploding engines and lack of maneuverability, and of course white paint for our fuel trucks so the fuel doesn't get too hot. Naw, let's just buy something else.

We can always buy the F18 super hornet, if we don't mind the wings falling off.

Planes don't need wings, do they?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20070517&id=n68jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6957,733944&hl=en

Edited September 22, 2015 by segnosaur

[Derek 2.0]

Well maybe the US can maintain our air force and make up the difference between Lock Mart projections and actual costs. Oh but then there are those exploding engines and lack of maneuverability, and of course white paint for our fuel trucks so the fuel doesn't get too hot. Naw, let's just buy something else.

I’m sure they would if they deemed it in their National Security interests……Kuwait (and Qatar) get “free” US Military training, infrastructure improvements and military assistance & support in exchange for subsidized fuel sales and logistic support to the DoD, unfettered basing agreements (including tens of thousands of US personal) and use of military training areas, in addition to consent to the United States to conduct any and all military and intelligence operations from their soil……oh and preferential bidding, on all Kuwaiti Government and private contracts, by US corporate interests.

Seems like a wonderful idea, sell our own National sovereignty to the United States in exchange for reducing our own commitments to our national defense.

Freedom isn't free

[SpankyMcFarland]

Derek 2.0 - simplify this for us. What were the total costs and what are they now? What does the F-35 provide compared to its competitors in simple language? What is the realistic life expectancy of such an aircraft in service?

I believe our military budget should be increased but the eye-watering and unstable costs of this project should be of concern to anybody worried about public expenditure.

Edited September 22, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Rue]

The F18 Superhornet is not the answer. Its a good jet but its not that different then what we have already and would be obsolete too fast.

You either go state of the art and get an F35 or the Swedish Griffen or Euro fighter jet. The Euro fighter jet is more expensive than the F35 and would not provide any spin off effect in Canada.

Harper has essentially said he has committed Canada to the F35. His reasoning is it would provide the most spin off benefit to Canadians in terms of jobs. That is true. The Swedish offer is good and they would build the jet in Canada but no the spin off would be no where as close. I get that,

I have always liked the Swedish fighter. I have always argued its far cheaper, easier to maintain, would have been built in Canada and would have been compatible with left over munitions from the jets we have now and is what we need-a small, easy to maintain interceptor at far less a price allowing us to put more in our fleet.

It would not provide as much spin off as the F35 no. It would not be able to provide certain things an F35 could in overseas missions. It could however easily be modified to be compatible with US air jets of any kind in NORAD missions. No its not the best fighter but the reality is in any North American attack, the US Air Force Raptors will be called upon and the US has no intention of selling one to anyo anyone.

I am from the school of thought you get more Swedish fighters for the buck and then limit the purchase of F35;s to maybe 10-20 and reserve them for NATO missions. I also think NATO could live with us having Swedish fighters and not F35 jets if push came to shove but yes they are not capable of going toe to toe one on one with a state of the art MIG.

I do not agree with the one jet fits all p mentality which is the state of the art 5th generation belief. I am old fashioned and believe a fleet should have different types of craft not one size fits all. I think the F35 is good for some things but not others. I do not think its the versatile jet its creators claimed it would be and is too much get for the air patrols we need but does have a role overseas fighting terrorists.

I think Harper jumped too quickly seeing all the other nations in on the deal. He jumped on a popular hype bandwagon with many nations including Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. He wanted the same jet as his Nato allies and the one most compatible to Norad missions with the US Air Force which it is supposed to be.

I just think he and the Americans are wrong with this F35. I do not like it. I have utmost respect for the F16, F-15, F-14, Warthog, and Tornado but such craft I am told are getting obsolete. The Europeans and French have created a jet in my opinion as good as the F35 but the cost is ridiculously high. The Swedish fighter does what we need it to and would leave m money available for a smaller fleet of F35s while still leaving us many more jets for Canadian missions.I do not see why we do not have say 80 Swedish fighters and 20 or so F35s.

That said, I do believe the F35 infrastructure spin off on the ground in Canada would be far more helpful to our economy then any other fighter craft build in our country after looking at the spin off contracts and infrastructure and no. of Canadian businesses that would be involved. I get that, I would go hybrid 7o- 80% Swedish, 20-30% F35.

That said, I believe Trudeau is a political prostitute who said what he said because he was in Halifax trying to get Halifax votes by pathetic pandering to their naval yards. It was crass pandering no different then his little shrill exploitation of the baby picture for votes. He is saying whatever comes to mind at whatever stop he is at pandering for votes.He is a typical whore monger politician.

Mulcair is also a foul mouthed liar. He is dead against the F35 and yesterday suddenly is trying to put himself as undecided on it. Oh bull. Just like he will cause no deficit. What a liar.

I may disagree with Harper on the choice of jet but I do understand his economic arguments that it best benefits Canadians on the ground with jobs.

The F35 delay though is not good and Harper may like other nations need to have a back up plan.

As for our navy neither Trudeau or Mulcair has any intent to spend money on our armed forces. Not a penny.

They lie through their teeth suggesting they would.

Even Mr. Harper in my opinion the best of the lot, cut spending and stripped our armed forces of vital services which I am not happy about.

Our country has a crippled armed forces. Our navy is non operational. We barely can mount rescue operations and our seas are ipen to any illegal fisherman, drug smuggler or terrorist. Our inability to patrol our seas is glaring. That is from years of refusing to fund our armed forces by all our politicians because we piggy back on the US Navy or Coast Guard for rescue operations. We always take he US armed forces for granted.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Rue

[Big Guy]

Paying $100 million for any one piece of machinery built to kill is outrageous. To put that kind of money into something that can be destroyed by a single missile is ridiculous. One airplane is the equivalent of about $3 per man, woman and child in Canada - and that is only one airplane! My grandkids could make their $3 last for a week.

How many lives could be saved with that money?

To even consider paying that kind of money for military equipment is irresponsible.

[segnosaur]

Derek 2.0 - simplify this for us. What were the total costs and what are they now? What does the F-35 provide compared to its competitors in simple language? What is the realistic life expectancy of such an aircraft in service?

Ok, lets set aside the technical features... the smaller radar cross section, the better sensor integration, etc.

The one thing that the F35 has that none of its current competitors have is the fact that it will be used by multiple countries and will likely be manufactured for decades to come. This means that, 30 years from now, it will be easier to get spare parts or replacements. And should some problem arise in the future, any cost of developing a fix can be spread among multiple countries.

Compare that to (for example) the F18 Super Hornet, where it may only be flown by 2 or 3 countries, and for which production will end likely by the end of the decade. If we buy a fleet of F18s, we may find ourselves as the lone operator mid-way through the plane's life span.

Similar problems exist with the other possible alternatives... like the Gripen or Typhoon. Both planes are currently being produced, but they've been around for 15 or 20 years, and have a much smaller number of planes. There is no guarantee that they will continue manufacturing them for more than a decade.

Overall, this will likely make the lifetime cost of the F35 less than that of the alternatives.

I believe our military budget should be increased but the eye-watering and unstable costs of this project should be of concern to anybody worried about public expenditure.

Keep in mind that the 'unstable' costs were largely centered around the development process.

When it comes time to purchase new jets, and if we select the F35, we can select terms of the contract that give stability. (If we sign a contract for $X per jet, that's what we'll be paying, regardless of how much that price had changed before we actually made the purchase.)

[segnosaur]

Paying $100 million for any one piece of machinery built to kill is outrageous. To put that kind of money into something that can be destroyed by a single missile is ridiculous. One airplane is the equivalent of about $3 per man, woman and child in Canada - and that is only one airplane! My grandkids could make their $3 last for a week.

How many lives could be saved with that money?

To even consider paying that kind of money for military equipment is irresponsible.

So, what exactly is your alternative? To not purchase any planes?

We're a modern country. Air traffic in and around our country is significant. As such, we should have the ability to patrol our air space, if for no other reason than to handle the occasional wayward airliner or off-course jet e.g. the Payne Stewart incident. (And this isn't even counting the user of jets to help establish control of our northern areas.) Not buying jets means one of 2 things:

- We have no ability to patrol our own airspace

or:

- We let the Americans do it for us, which most people would see as giving up a bit of our independence

[cybercoma]

Because different countries use different accounting methods. I have no idea what each aircraft would cost. That's why we should have an open competition.

Is this a change from your position in the past? Because I recall you being combative previously when people criticized the government because process wasn't open.

[Big Guy]

...

- We let the Americans do it for us, which most people would see as giving up a bit of our independence

We may as well. The only conflicts in which we are involved we come in on the coattails of the USA. The military aircraft and equipment we purchase from the Americans will never be as "sophisticated" as they keep for themselves.

What independence? Please cite a war or battle in which Canada has been involved in the last 100 years where the USA was not involved or when we did not play second fiddle to the USA?

Can you share a situation where Canada would be involved militarily where the USA would not? And where we would be doing what the USA tells us to do?

Do you think that if Canada started purchasing armaments from foreign countries capable of nuclear capabilities that the USA would let Canada develop a nuclear bomb?

The USA prides itself as a "warrior" nation. Let them be the sheriffs of the world, spend their money, develop their technological marvels of destruction and sacrifice their young in battle. I care what is good for Canada not what is good for the USA. If I have to view bodies coming back from battle I prefer to watch them at Arlington than on the Highway for Heroes (401) in Ontario.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Is there a possibility that UAVs and advances in missile technology could make the F-35 obsolete quicker than we think? Have the cost overruns been unusual in size and duration?

[SpankyMcFarland]

We may as well. The only conflicts in which we are involved we come in on the coattails of the USA. The military aircraft and equipment we purchase from the Americans will never be as "sophisticated" as they keep for themselves.

What independence? Please cite a war or battle in which Canada has been involved in the last 100 years where the USA was not involved or when we did not play second fiddle to the USA?

The USA prides itself as a "warrior" nation. Let them be the sheriffs of the world, spend their money, develop their technological marvels of destruction and sacrifice their young in battle. I care what is good for Canada not what is good for the USA. If I have to view bodies coming back from battle I prefer to watch them at Arlington than on the Highway for Heroes (401) in Ontario.

I disagree. The US is not always our ally in the Arctic.

[PIK]

So trudeau cancels this and we wait another 20 yrs like the helicopters. And we have had air crew die because of the wait in hele's. I would hate to see us buy a lesser air craft and then in 5-10 yrs we cant use them because they will be shot down with ease.

[segnosaur]

Is there a possibility that UAVs and advances in missile technology could make the F-35 obsolete quicker than we think?

Nope.

Drones certainly have a place in the military arsenal. And some day they may replace manned fighters. But, there are some significant issues that have to be resolved... lack of 360 degree situational awareness, lag time between drone and pilot.

Have the cost overruns been unusual in size and duration?

Almost all planes have had problems.

Eurofighter problems: http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature50517/

Lets see, from Wikipedia:

F35: ~9 years from first flight to deployment

Eurofighter: 9 years

F22: ~8 years

Raphale: 5 years

F18 Super Hornet: 4 years

So, the Super Hornet did have a much shorter time to deploy, but then it wasn't exactly dealing with new technology. The F35s development time doesn't seem that far out compared to some of the other possibilities.

I guess the lesson is the newer the technology, the more problems you can expect.

Edited September 22, 2015 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

We may as well. The only conflicts in which we are involved we come in on the coattails of the USA. The military aircraft and equipment we purchase from the Americans will never be as "sophisticated" as they keep for themselves.

What independence? Please cite a war or battle in which Canada has been involved in the last 100 years where the USA was not involved or when we did not play second fiddle to the USA?

30 seconds of googling found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medak_Pocket

Part of the civil war in eastern europe. (The Americans were involved in other parts of that war, but had nothing to do with the battle.)

I should also point out that Canada was also involved in both world wars (and saw significant military action) long before the Americans got involved.

I could also point out that Canada has played a larger role in some peacekeeping missions (Sinai desert, Cyprus) in which the U.S. either did not participate, or played a smaller role.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Nope.

Drones certainly have a place in the military arsenal. And some day they may replace manned fighters. But, there are some significant issues that have to be resolved... lack of 360 degree situational awareness, lag time between drone and pilot.

Almost all planes have had problems.

Eurofighter problems: http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature50517/

Lets see, from Wikipedia:

F35: ~9 years from first flight to deployment

Eurofighter: 9 years

Raphale: 5 years

F18 Super Hornet: 4 years

So, the Super Hornet did have a much shorter time to deploy, but then it wasn't exactly dealing with new technology. The F35s development time doesn't seem that far out compared to some of the other possibilities.

I guess the lesson is the newer the technology, the more problems you can expect.

What about the dollar amounts involved? There seems to be a lot of debate about the actual numbers.

[Derek 2.0]

Derek 2.0 - simplify this for us. What were the total costs and what are they now?

Right now, we currently pay ~$1 billion a year to operate our current Hornet fleet, or 5% of our defence budget. Whatever we purchase (F-35, Super Hornet, Eurofighter etc) we'll continue to pay ~$1 billion a year for, as these are sunk costs that include everything from salaries of personal to maintenance of the airbases. To purchase the F-35, spares, training aides etc to operate through its life will cost us ~$15 billion in new funds, the real debate, is what it would cost for a similar purchase of a different aircraft, is what another type would cost.

Right now, today, the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15 Silent Eagle and Gripen NG cost more than the low rate initial production F-35As. Inversely, today, the Super Hornet and latest version of the F-16 cost less than the F-35A, but once the F-35 enters full production in ~2017-2018, it will cost the same as, then less than, the Super Hornet and F-16, likewise, the price of the Super Hornet and F-16 will begin to increase as their production ceases......as linked to above, the US Government, as of today, will not be purchasing either Super Hornets or F-16s next year, as such, their production lines will end once they are complete their current orders (unless they received more orders in the interim).

So to answer your question, to purchase and operate the the F-35 for ~30 years will cost us ~$15 billion + ~$30 billion out too the later 2050s.

What does the F-35 provide compared to its competitors in simple language?

Aside from stealth, in simple language, generational change and advancement in technology. Simply put, the F-35 is the iphone 6 and the others are analog flip phones.

What is the realistic life expectancy of such an aircraft in service?

~30+ years.

I believe our military budget should be increased but the eye-watering and unstable costs of this project should be of concern to anybody worried about public expenditure.

The reality is, fighters are expensive to operate, and without them, we will be shown the door from NORAD and the Americans will defend North America how they see fit, including safeguarding the approaches to the United States, over Canada, with their own F-35s..........The question to ask yourself, do you want Canadian or American F-35s defending Canada?

[segnosaur]

What about the dollar amounts involved? There seems to be a lot of debate about the actual numbers.

Financial numbers are hard to pin down...

There does seem to be a rather nasty tendency for governments to use fighter procurement as "piggy banks". We saw that with both the F22 and F35... Cut plane purchases to pay for other programs. But since development costs stay fixed, the planes look more expensive. So, they cut down the size of the order again, which then makes the plane look even more expensive.

[Argus]

Because different countries use different accounting methods. I have no idea what each aircraft would cost. That's why we should have an open competition.

The whole stupid argument over the pricing is based upon the novel idea that we need to include the entire lifespan costs of these aircraft, including fuel, parts, hangars, the cost of the snowblowers to clear the airfields and the salaries for the pilots. It's never been done before during any military acquisition, and makes everyone who isn't an expert completely confused about what it is we're paying. It also makes it impossible to compare prices among other nations.