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

[Moonbox]

If you know the answer, why are hung up on the fact that the Americans........

Because that's where we're going to get the most accurate numbers for the ACTUAL cost of production aircraft? It's not going to be any cheaper per unit in Canada, is it?

Numbers for LRIP aircraft.....

Yes, we've already been over that. They need to drop about $40M (1/3rd) off the current price at full-scale production to meet an $80M target. Lockheed says they will do it, but given how many promises and commitments they've broken so far we have no reason to believe them.

So the current cost of a Super Hornet isn't a valid contrast when using F-35 costing in ~5 years?

The F-35 costs will go up with inflation in that same period. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The RAAF didn't purchase a pod for each aircraft.

Okay, fair enough, but the US is buying Sniper ATP pods at ~$1.6M each. Australia's 18 pods seemed to have cost over $4M each, but apparently that's because there is a ton of training and logistical support needed to integrate them into the Australian armed forces, whereas the US is benefiting from prior experience and economies of scale. Either way, that doesn't make come close to bridging the gap between the F-35 and F-18E in terms of price.

No it's not, I provided the actual USN budgeted amount, with the inclusion of the required "pods", and was ~75 million, or roughly the projected cost of the F-35A.

Okay, so with a small 500-unit production run, the fully-equipped Super Hornet is still coming out cheaper than the absolute best-case scenario F-35, with an anticipated ~3000-unit production run. It's not an apple-to-apples comparison, but even with the disadvantage of scale, the Super Hornet is still cheaper. All of this of course assumes that Lockheed gets its act together, which is hardly a given.

[Derek 2.0]

Single engine is only one level of concern. I'm well aware of the improvements that have come along over time. With the f 35 we are not only talking safety, we are talking capability. They are so far over budget and so long over sked and the "hits' just seem to keep on coming. I'm sure they will get the engine figured out eventually. They have already redesigned it once although it still seems to have similar problems again. But how much will we waste on a concept that just doesn't work. At least in our lifetime that a "one size fits all" appraoach will work for airplanes. Never worked for cars.

You answered, right there, why I’m not concerned with the single engine F-35…...Advancements in technology, coupled with the proven record of both Lockheed and P&W…….simply put both companies have been in the business for a very long time and have delivered products with proven success…..As to cost, though it’s certainly expensive, all defense programs are, especially when developing new technologies.

What matters is the finished product, of which a great many nations have continued high expectations and confidence in.

[On Guard for Thee]

You answered, right there, why I’m not concerned with the single engine F-35…...Advancements in technology, coupled with the proven record of both Lockheed and P&W…….simply put both companies have been in the business for a very long time and have delivered products with proven success…..As to cost, though it’s certainly expensive, all defense programs are, especially when developing new technologies.

What matters is the finished product, of which a great many nations have continued high expectations and confidence in.

I think you'll find that a good number of them are having cold feet either by reducing orders or delaying ordering in favor of "bridge" purchases such as Australlia and Superhornets etc. Countries who initially bought in are sort of forced to hang in due to the old "good money after bad" process. It will be produced for sure, but then so was the Edsel.

[Derek 2.0]

Because that's where we're going to get the most accurate numbers for the ACTUAL cost of production aircraft? It's not going to be any cheaper per unit in Canada, is it?

Canada, like Australia, is a tier III partner and has already paid our portion of development costs......

Yes, we've already been over that. They need to drop about $40M (1/3rd) off the current price at full-scale production to meet an $80M target. Lockheed says they will do it, but given how many promises and commitments they've broken so far we have no reason to believe them.

Lockheed is not to blame for reduced DoD orders, which in turn effect production costs, due to US Government spending cuts.

The F-35 costs will go up with inflation in that same period. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The projected F-35 figures include inflation based on today's dollar....The Super Hornet, not so much.

Okay, fair enough, but the US is buying Sniper ATP pods at ~$1.6M each. Australia's 18 pods seemed to have cost over $4M each, but apparently that's because there is a ton of training and logistical support needed to integrate them into the Australian armed forces, whereas the US is benefiting from prior experience and economies of scale. Either way, that doesn't make come close to bridging the gap between the F-35 and F-18E in terms of price.

It does when you include ECM, upgrades, and integration to the avionics of an end users fleet……these of course are hidden costs not only associated with the Super Hornet, but other legacy types…..Of course, these costs are accounted for with the F-35 which has said systems integral to the aircraft on production

Over 50% of the cost of all modern aircraft programs is the avionics and electronics.

Okay, so with a small 500-unit production run, the fully-equipped Super Hornet is still coming out cheaper than the absolute best-case scenario F-35, with an anticipated ~3000-unit production run. It's not an apple-to-apples comparison, but even with the disadvantage of scale, the Super Hornet is still cheaper. All of this of course assumes that Lockheed gets its act together, which is hardly a given.

And the "experts" also said several years ago the program would be binned.........As I said, I'll swim against the stream, and await to be proven wrong in a few years time......

[Derek 2.0]

I think you'll find that a good number of them are having cold feet either by reducing orders or delaying ordering in favor of "bridge" purchases such as Australlia and Superhornets etc. Countries who initially bought in are sort of forced to hang in due to the old "good money after bad" process. It will be produced for sure, but then so was the Edsel.

As said numerous times, the RAAF purchased the Super Hornets to replace their F-111 medium bombers, well adding an integral EW capability to their military with the purchase of the Growlers.......they haven't reduced their planned F-35 purchase.

[On Guard for Thee]

As said numerous times, the RAAF purchased the Super Hornets to replace their F-111 medium bombers, well adding an integral EW capability to their military with the purchase of the Growlers.......they haven't reduced their planned F-35 purchase.

Yes they have. From a hundred down to 72.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes they have. From a hundred down to 72.

No......The 72 aircraft figure is the requirement to replace their legacy Hornets.......the additional ~28 aircraft, bringing the total to 100, will include the Super Hornet replacements in the later part of next decade, which at one point were planned to be F-35As, but will now likely entail an earlier purchase of F-35Bs to be shared by both the RAAF and the RAN FAA.

[Moonbox]

Canada, like Australia, is a tier III partner and has already paid our portion of development costs......

So again, what does this information provide to the debate?

Lockheed is not to blame for reduced DoD orders, which in turn effect production costs, due to US Government spending cuts.

The reduced DoD orders are also a result of Lockheed's failure to get the program under control, on time and at a reasonable cost.

The projected F-35 figures include inflation based on today's dollar....The Super Hornet, not so much.

The projected F-35 figures are just projections, ones given by the same company that failed to meet all of their other plans and projections. They're also based on a 6:1 economies of scale advantage over the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, unless it gets a big order soon, is going to have its production cancelled. It was essentially just a stop-gap measure in the first place.

It does when you include ECM, upgrades, and integration to the avionics of an end users fleet……these of course are hidden costs not only associated with the Super Hornet, but other legacy types…..Of course, these costs are accounted for with the F-35 which has said systems integral to the aircraft on production

No, ECM and upgrades do not make up a (currently) $50M difference. The only thing that will make that up is if Lockheed's dubious commitments and cost projections finally, for once, turn out to be true.

Over 50% of the cost of all modern aircraft programs is the avionics and electronics.

If you say so, but targeting pods and ECM doesn't cost $20M+ per plane.

And the "experts" also said several years ago the program would be binned.........As I said, I'll swim against the stream, and await to be proven wrong in a few years time......

I never thought the program would be binned. I just think that Lockheed, P&W and various other partners need the Pentagon to b****slap them and get them in line. Considering how much the US has already spent, they damn well better get the per unit costs into the realm of reasonable.

[Rue]

reuters-august /2/14-This just in-the F 35's are still grounded. A spokesperson for Lougheed going only by the first name Derek stated; oh you just wait.

Got to hand it to Derek, he will not give up on his beloved F35.

Admit it Derek you drive a Pinto.

[bush_cheney2004]

I remain convinced that Canada will procure the F-35A because time and time again, Canada has demonstrated that it will not spend the money to fully fund development of alternatives through to production. That is to say, Canada will not go it alone to tweak existing legacy airframes to suit its needs. Today's CF-188s are actually stronger and heavier (shorter ranged) variants of American F/A-18 carrier based strike fighters compared to what could have been optimized for Canada's specific needs/roles in Northop's proposed F-18L.

But that never happened, and it won't happen for Super Hornets (Advanced), Strike Eagles, Gripens, or Eurofighters. It won't happen for exotic mixes of UCAVs and Growlers either. And it turns out that buying U.S. Navy Hornets served Canada well, because the airframes were kept in service far longer than originally designed/intended.

Ironically, Canada will not spend the money to go it alone on a "cheaper" solution.

Northrop F-18L

Edited August 3, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonbox]

I remain convinced that Canada will procure the F-35A because time and time again, Canada has demonstrated that it will not spend the money to fully fund development of alternatives through to production.

I don't think there's any question about that. Any of the alternatives don't make sense, just like Canada developing and producing their own plane wouldn't make sense either.

[Derek 2.0]

So again, what does this information provide to the debate?

The difference in costs.

The reduced DoD orders are also a result of Lockheed's failure to get the program under control, on time and at a reasonable cost.

Ahh...no, spending cuts to DoD, including the F-35, are a reflection of US Government spending as a whole.

The projected F-35 figures are just projections, ones given by the same company that failed to meet all of their other plans and projections. They're also based on a 6:1 economies of scale advantage over the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, unless it gets a big order soon, is going to have its production cancelled. It was essentially just a stop-gap measure in the first place.

Do you feel the current production Super Hornet price was the same as the Super Hornet LRIP price?

No, ECM and upgrades do not make up a (currently) $50M difference. The only thing that will make that up is if Lockheed's dubious commitments and cost projections finally, for once, turn out to be true.

I never said that it did.

If you say so, but targeting pods and ECM doesn't cost $20M+ per plane.

It can.

Why is there a stark difference in production prices between a baseline Super Hornet and a Growler?

I never thought the program would be binned. I just think that Lockheed, P&W and various other partners need the Pentagon to b****slap them and get them in line. Considering how much the US has already spent, they damn well better get the per unit costs into the realm of reasonable.

I, like those nations that will purchase it, based on historic precedent of defence programs, have no doubt that costs will drop once full production has started.

[ASIP]

And it turns out that buying U.S. Navy Hornets served Canada well, because the airframes were kept in service far longer than originally designed/intended.

I am not sure that your statement is true. Design service life of Canadian CF-18 is 6000 flight hours (from open sources). My understanding is that this limit is not reached yet. And wing structural condition is not good (from rumors).

[Derek 2.0]

I am not sure that your statement is true. Design service life of Canadian CF-18 is 6000 flight hours (from open sources). My understanding is that this limit is not reached yet. And wing structural condition is not good (from rumors).

6k flight hours was the designed lifespan, but of course said figure is attributed to usage by the USN.......carrier usage is harder on the airframes...With that said, our Hornets, like the RAAF, USMC and Spanish are approaching the end of their lives....We have already retired Hornets based on airframe fatigue.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not sure that your statement is true. Design service life of Canadian CF-18 is 6000 flight hours (from open sources). My understanding is that this limit is not reached yet. And wing structural condition is not good (from rumors).

Open sources report that of the 77 CF-188s remaining in service, about 1/3rd have exceeded 6000 hours and the average for all is about 5800 hours. The U.S. has pushed some F/A-18s to nearly 9000 hours with barrel, wing, and pylon upgrades. In a related note, CF-188 pilots have reduced proficiency flight hours compared to the 1990's (240 vs. 180).

[ASIP]

Open sources report that of the 77 CF-188s remaining in service, about 1/3rd have exceeded 6000 hours and the average for all is about 5800 hours.

So, it is not

far longer than originally designed/intended

then...

[bush_cheney2004]

then...

...then some have and some haven't. Certainly more will exceed 6000 hours before any replacement is deployed. Time is running out for CF-188s...corrosion and cracks never sleep.

[dre]

Wow, the US could have purchased a home for every homeless person in the country for the cost of the F-35 project. Damn! http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/09/3458101/f35-boondoggle-fail/

Building homes in America is nowhere near as fun to watch on TV as blowing up homes in the middle east.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nor is spending money at Home Depot etc. on lumber anywhere near as sexy as pissing it away on planes with engines that explode on takeoff.

C'mon, live a little.

[John Charlton]

When will the PC gang see that the F-35 was a mess to start and, the Ship Building will be right behind it. I know we will be in debt with military spending, but we have to be ready to play our part with the UN wilth best equipment for our sons and daughters that are going to be in harms way. The fact that we left the UN security council make me very angry. As you can see I am not a Stephen Harper fan.

[Derek 2.0]

...then some have and some haven't. Certainly more will exceed 6000 hours before any replacement is deployed. Time is running out for CF-188s...corrosion and cracks never sleep.

That is correct. The RCAF’s approach to fleet management and usage entails working some airframes harder than others, as opposed to equal usage spread across the fleet. This ensures that a portion of the fleet will have a greater serviceability rate for emergency deployments.

Of course, even with this method of usage, airframe life will reach an eventual end.

[John Charlton]

Next it will be the Ships that are needed and as usual the PC party will leave Canada undefended. The buget is all the rage that has no new jets or ships or defence of this country in it. Wait till Russia takes the arttic and then...

[Moonbox]

The difference in costs.

It doesn't, but whatever.

Ahh...no, spending cuts to DoD, including the F-35, are a reflection of US Government spending as a whole.

Pure foolishness. If the F-35 program hadn't been hemorrhaging money for the last 10 years there would have been more money for procurement and less need for cuts.

Do you feel the current production Super Hornet price was the same as the Super Hornet LRIP price?

I know it wasn't, but full-scale production of the Super Hornet averaged less than 17 planes per year, whereas the more recent "LRIP" lots of the F-35 double that in size. To be clear, once more, I'm not suggesting the Super Hornet as an alternative, just refuting your claim that the F-35 will end up cheaper, despite it's 6:1 advantage in production scale.

It can. Why is there a stark difference in production prices between a baseline Super Hornet and a Growler?

The Growler is a (mostly) dedicated electronic warfare platform. The reasons it costs so much more than the regular Super Hornet would be similar to why the E-3 Sentry is so much more expensive than the normal 707. You CAN pack tens of millions of dollars worth of extra targeting and jamming equipment, but that's not the case with the standard F-18. The F-35, I suspect, does carry a lot of this gear.

I, like those nations that will purchase it, based on historic precedent of defence programs, have no doubt that costs will drop once full production has started.

I've no doubt they will either. The question is how much. Under $100M? I'd be surprised if it didn't. Under $90M? I start to doubt. $80M and below? Nope. Also, although foreign buyers don't really have to worry about this, the bloated development budget can't be ignored. They're sunk costs now, so it doesn't really matter moving forward, but when evaluating Lockheed Martin's success (or lack thereof) on delivering this plane, you do have to look at the hundreds of billions in cost overruns and realize that the American taxpayer underwrote and heavily subsidized the final cost of the plane for foreign buyers. Where's bush_cheney? I want to thank him.

[Moonbox]

When will the PC gang see that the F-35 was a mess to start and, the Ship Building will be right behind it. I know we will be in debt with military spending, but we have to be ready to play our part with the UN wilth best equipment for our sons and daughters that are going to be in harms way.

So what are you suggesting? That we don't buy modern fighters for our air force or ships for our navy? The procurement process was lousy, sure. Is that what you're saying?

The fact that we left the UN security council make me very angry.

We didn't leave, we weren't voted on to it.

As you can see I am not a Stephen Harper fan.

Yes, your bias is very clear.

[Derek 2.0]

It doesn't, but whatever.

How do you know? As I asked, what do both deals entail?

Pure foolishness. If the F-35 program hadn't been hemorrhaging money for the last 10 years there would have been more money for procurement and less need for cuts.

What is foolish is to believe that US Government budgetary woes, and in turn sequestration, are attributed to the F-35……….Did the F-35 also cause the financial crisis?

I know it wasn't, but full-scale production of the Super Hornet averaged less than 17 planes per year, whereas the more recent "LRIP" lots of the F-35 double that in size. To be clear, once more, I'm not suggesting the Super Hornet as an alternative, just refuting your claim that the F-35 will end up cheaper, despite it's 6:1 advantage in production scale.

The most recent LRIP of F-35s are still not full production.........If you want to compare apples to apples, look at the difference in price difference between LRIP and production Super Hornet......

The Growler is a (mostly) dedicated electronic warfare platform. The reasons it costs so much more than the regular Super Hornet would be similar to why the E-3 Sentry is so much more expensive than the normal 707. You CAN pack tens of millions of dollars worth of extra targeting and jamming equipment, but that's not the case with the standard F-18. The F-35, I suspect, does carry a lot of this gear.

Are you suggesting the reason for the stark price difference is targeting pods, ECM and upgrades to baseline avionics? Like I was saying………

And yes, the F-35 will have an extensive ECM suite, so much so, the USMC won’t be replacing their current Prowlers with a dedicated type like the Growler and will stick with a mixed F-35B/C fleet.

I've no doubt they will either. The question is how much. Under $100M? I'd be surprised if it didn't. Under $90M? I start to doubt. $80M and below? Nope. Also, although foreign buyers don't really have to worry about this, the bloated development budget can't be ignored. They're sunk costs now, so it doesn't really matter moving forward, but when evaluating Lockheed Martin's success (or lack thereof) on delivering this plane, you do have to look at the hundreds of billions in cost overruns and realize that the American taxpayer underwrote and heavily subsidized the final cost of the plane for foreign buyers. Where's bush_cheney? I want to thank him.

I've no doubt all three F-35s, once in full production, will be under 100 million (The F-35A, sans an engine is already), nor do I doubt the baseline F-35A will be somewhere between 85-75 million......

And frankly, I don't care that the American taxpayer underwrote the program, fore without international partners they would still have built a 5th gen aircraft on their on hook...

But as I said, time will tell who is right on costing.......