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

[Derek 2.0]

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?

No, as modern and near term UAVs have major challenges facing them in terms of progression. With that said, they will complement manned aircraft in some roles going forward, but not replace them in likely in of our lifetimes.......this is evident by the Americans new bomber program and 6th generation fighter that will both be manned.

Missile technology and countermeasures will be an endless race, of course, the Americans are generations ahead of any potential foes, and still ahead of their own allies.

[Argus]

Cancelling the order was the right thing to do. the F35 is already out-manuevered by both Russian & Chinese jets.

Modern jets win or lose based on their technological level, not speed. A jet which is hard to target and lock up on radar will beat out a fast jet virtually every time given missiles are usually fired from many miles away now.

The fact is the aircraft being mentioned as alternatives have already been flying for 20 years. We need an aircraft which will still be technologically capable in 2040, and these older planes are very unlikely to meet that need.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

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.

No, I understand what each figure was referring to in relation to the F-35($9B, $16B, $43B - all different things made into something from nothing). I can't tell you what other countries are referring to, because I don't know.

[segnosaur]

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.

Worse than that, the opposition has used "lifespan" costs as a way to introduce a type of sticker shock in a crass display of political partisanship.

Only gave the costs for the first 20/30 years? Demand them for 40 years, then claim "increased costs" based on the longer time frame. (Ignoring the fact that any plane that they purchase will cost more when you give the cost for 40 years instead of 20.)

[Smallc]

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.

I agree with you 100%, and have argued the exact same. I was simply saying you can't just take our budget and put it onto someone else's accounting method.

[Smallc]

Worse than that, the opposition has used "lifespan" costs as a way to introduce a type of sticker shock in a crass display of political partisanship.

Yeah, and the media didn't help - "what was a $9B purchase turns out to be a $43B one!" when those figures are in fact both right but refer to different things (one is just the purchase, the other is everything for the lifespan).

[Argus]

Yeah, and the media didn't help - "what was a $9B purchase turns out to be a $43B one!" when those figures are in fact both right but refer to different things (one is just the purchase, the other is everything for the lifespan).

But it allows them to breathlessly discuss the 'scandal' of the Conservatives lying about the numbers.

[segnosaur]

Cancelling the order was the right thing to do. the F35 is already out-manuevered by both Russian & Chinese jets.

Modern jets win or lose based on their technological level, not speed. A jet which is hard to target and lock up on radar will beat out a fast jet virtually every time given missiles are usually fired from many miles away now.

I'd also question whether they really are being "out-maneuvered" by Russian/Chinese jets.

Some Russian planes do have thrust vectoring, but the quality of some of their planes has been suspect. Plus, the ability of the F35 to carry its weapons internally may help it with both its maneuverability and its speed.

[segnosaur]

Yeah, and the media didn't help - "what was a $9B purchase turns out to be a $43B one!" when those figures are in fact both right but refer to different things (one is just the purchase, the other is everything for the lifespan).

What? How can that be? I thought the media was all composed of right-wing sycophants with an overwhelming conservative bias. Why would they say anything to make the conservatives look bad?

[Derek 2.0]

I agree with you 100%, and have argued the exact same. I was simply saying you can't just take our budget and put it onto someone else's accounting method.

You don't have to, that is not to say you can't determine the actual purchase price........If you, myself and the City of Winnipeg all bought a new pick-up cash, we'll all pay them same amount. The difference is in annual usage, expected lifetime and ancillary costs etc and how we then account for lifetime usage.

[Smallc]

You don't have to, that is not to say you can't determine the actual purchase price........If you, myself and the City of Winnipeg all bought a new pick-up cash, we'll all pay them same amount.

We don't know if they bought them for cash.

[On Guard for Thee]

To add, the current and projected cost comparisons between the F-35A and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (what is mentioned in the Liberal's platform)

The current price in 2015 FY USD, for a pre-production F-35A:

Of course, Canada wouldn't be purchasing the F-35 until it was in full production, at which point, per Lockheed, the aircraft will cost:

Now the Super Hornet, which is winding down production, per the most recent contract to the Kuwaiti air force:

$3 billion / 28 aircraft = ~$107 million per aircraft..............$107 million price for aircraft that will not be used by the USAF and Air National Guard in the defense of North American airspace via NORAD out to the 2050-60 time frame, likewise $107 million price tag for aircraft that the USN and RAAF will start retiring in the later 2020s-2030s.

Trudeau is an idiot for disallowing the F-35 in a Hornet replacement program..........Harper's position I agree with (no surprise) and I'm forced to give Mulcair credit, if he was to hold a fair competition for the Hornet replacement, that I do feel is a waste of time, it will find the F-35 the winner on both capability and price-point.......as its doing with other Western nations.

Apparently you did't bother to read your own link which also includes the flyaway cost of the F 18E/F at $65.3 million. FY2013.

Now let's think about the Canadian dollar, if you figure an 80 dollar we are looking at $165 million per F 35A FY 2016.

[Derek 2.0]

We don't know if they bought them for cash.

All Kuwaiti purchases are cash, as they (and Qatar) don't receive DoD FMF on purchasing.

[Derek 2.0]

Apparently you did't bother to read your own link which also includes the flyaway cost of the F 18E/F at $65.3 million. FY2013.

Now let's think about the Canadian dollar, if you figure an 80 dollar we are looking at $165 million per F 35A FY 2016.

So you don't expect the Canadian dollar to effect the purchase of Super Hornets?

[segnosaur]

Apparently you did't bother to read your own link which also includes the flyaway cost of the F 18E/F at $65.3 million. FY2013.

Now let's think about the Canadian dollar, if you figure an 80 dollar we are looking at $165 million per F 35A FY 2016.

Why are you looking at F18 costs from 2 years ago rather than current/future price (when inflation might have increased the price)?

Why are you pointing out the F35 costs in 2016, when the actual costs of the F35 have been decreasing as production levels have increased, and we won't be buying the fleet for a few more years?

Why are you only pointing out the exchange rate when dealing with the F35 and not the F18?

Well, OK, we know why you're doing it... because any arguments you've put forward have been totally debunked, so you have to resort to deceptive tactics in an attempt to justify your position. I guess the better question is, why did you think nobody would notice?

Edited September 22, 2015 by segnosaur

[Big Guy]

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

I believe that the USA will get out of the Arctic what the USA wants out of the Arctic - as usual. I find it ironic that the few times Canada is not involved in the same battle as the USA is when Canada is there in a peacekeeping capacity.

[ReeferMadness]

I have a bunch of questions about the F35 and this latest controversy.

1. Did Trudeau actually rule out the F35 or did he just say he would cancel the current program and then go out to bid (and possibly still get the F35)?
2. One of the big selling points for the F18 was that it had 2 engines and sufficient range to patrol/intercept in the arctic. Why is a single engine/short range fighter now acceptable?
3. It seems like the big feature for the F35 is the stealth feature. Is stealth critical for home air defence? Or is this really more for invading someone else's airspace?
4. Has the F35 actually proven itself yet? There were still a lot of problems last time I read anything on it.

[Smallc]

I have a bunch of questions about the F35 and this latest controversy.

• Did Trudeau actually rule out the F35 or did he just say he would cancel the current program and then go out to bid (and possibly still get the F35)?

Trudeau specifically said that Canada doesn't need a 1st strike capability. That rules out the F-35 before a competition is even held.

• One of the big selling points for the F18 was that it had 2 engines and sufficient range to patrol/intercept in the arctic. Why is a single engine/short range fighter now acceptable?

That must explain how all of the other arctic nations are able to fly the F-16.

Further:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_.28F.2FA-18E.2FF.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_.28F-35A.29

The F-35 has a much bigger combat radius than the Hornet or Super Hornet.

• It seems like the big feature for the F35 is the stealth feature. Is stealth critical for home air defence? Or is this really more for invading someone else's airspace?

If the guy attacking your home has stealth and you don't....

[On Guard for Thee]

Why are you looking at F18 costs from 2 years ago rather than current/future price (when inflation might have increased the price)?

Why are you pointing out the F35 costs in 2016, when the actual costs of the F35 have been decreasing as production levels have increased, and we won't be buying the fleet for a few more years?

Why are you only pointing out the exchange rate when dealing with the F35 and not the F18?

Well, OK, we know why you're doing it... because any arguments you've put forward have been totally debunked, so you have to resort to deceptive tactics in an attempt to justify your position. I guess the better question is, why did you think nobody would notice?

I was simply using D2's source.

[Derek 2.0]

I have a bunch of questions about the F35 and this latest controversy.

1. Did Trudeau actually rule out the F35 or did he just say he would cancel the current program and then go out to bid (and possibly still get the F35)?

He stated he would rule out the F-35 by name (this is also confirmed in the Liberal's defense platform)

2.One of the big selling points for the F18 was that it had 2 engines and sufficient range to patrol/intercept in the arctic. Why is a single engine/short range fighter now acceptable?

The F-35 has a longer range, on internal fuel, then our current Hornets and the Super Hornet, both carrying drop tanks........The United States, Norway and Denmark have been using the single engine F-16 in the Arctic since the 1970s. In the case of the USAF, their single engine F-16s have a higher engine safety rate than their twin engine F-15s. Also, the USAF will be basing F-35s in Fairbanks Alaska, which is just outside the Arctic circle, likewise Norway, which will continue to base the majority of its force in Bodo, which is also an arctic environment.

3.It seems like the big feature for the F35 is the stealth feature. Is stealth critical for home air defence? Or is this really more for invading someone else's airspace?

Stealth is but a form of camouflage, its as critical as providing our army with CADPAT uniforms instead of neon colors......to add, with the Russians now basing their own modern fighters in the Arctic, stealth will provide a significant advantage and measure of safety to our own forces conducting NORAD missions.

1. Has the F35 actually proven itself yet? There were still a lot of problems last time I read anything on it.

The F-35B just entered operational service with the USMC this summer, the Marines have already stated its a vast improvement over its Harrier and Hornets, Hornets that are the same vintage as our current Hornet fleet.

[segnosaur]

I have a bunch of questions about the F35 and this latest controversy.

Did Trudeau actually rule out the F35 or did he just say he would cancel the current program and then go out to bid (and possibly still get the F35)?

More or less yeah. He specified that he wanted to "go with something cheaper". At best, he is speaking out of a position of ignorance (i.e. assuming the F35 won't be the cheapest option, even if it were included in an open competition). At worst, he has totally discounted it.

One of the big selling points for the F18 was that it had 2 engines and sufficient range to patrol/intercept in the arctic. Why is a single engine/short range fighter now acceptable?

The initial requirement for 2 engines stemmed from technology in the 60s/70s, when engines were much less reliable. As technology and reliability have improved, the need for a 2-engine plane has dropped. (And it should be pointed out that other countries with an arctic presence have been using single engine planes for years... F16s in Alaska and Grippens in Sweden.)

As for the range, not sure where you got the "short range" from. According to Wikipedia, its combat radius is > 1000 km, roughly twice that of our current CF18s.

it seems like the big feature for the F35 is the stealth feature. Is stealth critical for home air defence? Or is this really more for invading someone else's airspace?

Two points:

- It may not be critical for home defense, but Canada has (at various times) engaged in foreign military missions (some with air strikes, some with ground troops), and each of our main political parties has supported at least one (if not more) of those missions. (The conservatives got us involved in Syria, the Liberals in Afghanistan, and while the NDP wasn't in charge, they voted in favor of the bombing mission in Libya.) Buying planes that are unsuited to such missions would be limiting the ability of future governments to set international policy.

- Even if steath is ignored, there are other reasons why the F35 would be considered the best choice.... the longer projected production run (giving more opportunity to buy cheaper spare parts), better chance of industrial benefits

Has the F35 actually proven itself yet? There were still a lot of problems last time I read anything on it.

Define "proven itself".

Many of the tests have gone well. One small squadron has been deployed by the marines. (They have had problems with the deployment related to keeping the planes operational but some experience will help there.)

A lot of F35 critics have pointed to a supposed "dog fight" that the F35 lost against an F16, but since the F35 wasn't even a completely functional model, it wasn't exactly a proper test.

And in a Green Flag test, the F35 did fairly well. From: http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

...not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

Of course, if you suggest we should only go with airplanes that have "proven themselves" then we'd still be flying Sopwith Camels. Somewhere along the line you have to decide that your test flights have given enough confidence the plane will work well in actual combat.

[ReeferMadness]

The F-35 has a longer range, on internal fuel, then our current Hornets and the Super Hornet, both carrying drop tanks........The United States, Norway and Denmark have been using the single engine F-16 in the Arctic since the 1970s. In the case of the USAF, their single engine F-16s have a higher engine safety rate than their twin engine F-15s. Also, the USAF will be basing F-35s in Fairbanks Alaska, which is just outside the Arctic circle, likewise Norway, which will continue to base the majority of its force in Bodo, which is also an arctic environment.

Doesn't Canada have much more territory to cover than either Norway or the US? I'm thinking of the chance that the fighter would be over the Arctic Ocean when it lost an engine and the distance/time that would be involved in a rescue. Maybe Denmark might be a better comparison because it defends Greenland, although I don't know how often it would do air patrols there. Also, is the comparison to the F16 fair? My understanding of the F16 was that it was designed to be a fairly simple aircraft that could be purchased in relatively high numbers because it was relatively low cost. That's not my impression of the F35.

Is the F16 safer than the F15 because it's a simpler design?

Stealth is but a form of camouflage, its as critical as providing our army with CADPAT uniforms instead of neon colors......to add, with the Russians now basing their own modern fighters in the Arctic, stealth will provide a significant advantage and measure of safety to our own forces conducting NORAD missions.

My understanding was that the F35 was intended to be a multi-role aircraft and that's why it's so expensive. It seemed like Trudeau was arguing we should focus on air defence and not something designed to penetrate other countries' defences. Is there a less expensive alternative that would be better?

The F-35B just entered operational service with the USMC this summer, the Marines have already stated its a vast improvement over its Harrier and Hornets, Hornets that are the same vintage as our current Hornet fleet.

Fair enough. But given the bad press that the aircraft has had and what's at stake, isn't there an incentive for them to provide favorable reports?

One last question. We had well over 100 F18's but the proposal is to buy only 65 F35's. Did we have too many F18's or is this just a matter of us only buying 65 because they think that the cost of the 100+ F35's wouldn't be politically acceptable?

[cybercoma]

Worse than that, the opposition has used "lifespan" costs as a way to introduce a type of sticker shock in a crass display of political partisanship.

That accounting was brought in by the Tories. It's their own rules that they refuse to follow and you know damn well when they leave office they'll be pointing out to other parties that they have to show "lifespan costs."

[Queenmandy85]

So far, the RCAF deployment in Iraq and Syria have been confined to killing individuals or small groups. These are operations that could be carried out with more success and a lot less money using infantry.

As I said previously, the flock of wild turkey's behind my cabin are a better air combat platform than the F-35.

The F-35 presents the same problem as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive. Canadians do not want to pay for or participate in, the defence of Canada. Their attitude is folly, but they are the boss.

[ReeferMadness]

More or less yeah. He specified that he wanted to "go with something cheaper". At best, he is speaking out of a position of ignorance (i.e. assuming the F35 won't be the cheapest option, even if it were included in an open competition). At worst, he has totally discounted it.

The initial requirement for 2 engines stemmed from technology in the 60s/70s, when engines were much less reliable. As technology and reliability have improved, the need for a 2-engine plane has dropped. (And it should be pointed out that other countries with an arctic presence have been using single engine planes for years... F16s in Alaska and Grippens in Sweden.)

OK.

As for the range, not sure where you got the "short range" from. According to Wikipedia, its combat radius is > 1000 km, roughly twice that of our current CF18s.

I know I read it somewhere but can't remember where.

Two points:

- It may not be critical for home defense, but Canada has (at various times) engaged in foreign military missions (some with air strikes, some with ground troops), and each of our main political parties has supported at least one (if not more) of those missions. (The conservatives got us involved in Syria, the Liberals in Afghanistan, and while the NDP wasn't in charge, they voted in favor of the bombing mission in Libya.) Buying planes that are unsuited to such missions would be limiting the ability of future governments to set international policy.

- Even if steath is ignored, there are other reasons why the F35 would be considered the best choice.... the longer projected production run (giving more opportunity to buy cheaper spare parts), better chance of industrial benefits

I'm not sure that Canadians generally would be in favour of spending a lot more money to allow future governments to "set international policy". The examples you've provided (Libya, Afghanistan) and Iraq have all turned into disasters. Now Syria is a huge mess. Maybe we shouldn't be using bombing as a tool of international policy.

There are stories that the F35's are terrible in a dogfight (slow, don't turn or climb well). I understand that the point is to defeat the enemy without getting to the dogfight stage but are we sure that dogfighting is no longer required?