Military Spending Cuts

[carepov]

..

Oops, I did not realize that navy costs were being compared to air force costs. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, Boeng says operating costs of the Hornets will be about 25% less than legacy planes, while Lockheed says costs will be about the same. Not that I trust the salesmen. But who can you trust?! Not our government, alas.

Do you have a link to support your claim about the Super Hornet being obsolete faster than the F35?

[On Guard for Thee]

Such as? What do we not require that we bought which would save us substantial funds?

Some people do not understand that expensive does not equal to over priced. We need kit that will meet our requirements in the present, and cover as many future requirements as possible.

This goes hand in hand with not buying overpriced kit when we can get it "better" for "cheaper".

I call BS on this one, the initial cost might be more for the F35 but over the long run the F35 will be cheaper than the Super hornet. For example the F/A-18F the RAAF has is an aircraft that needs 2 crew members which means that right there it costs more, twice the engines require twice as many techs working on it or slower turnover rate for repairs and maintenance because same number of techs fixing 2X as many engines. Mid life refit will be the responsibility of Canada since the US will be dropping the aircraft in a decade or so thus they will not be upgrading it vs them upgrading the F35 and passing along that to other users. Most of the rest is equal whatever aircraft we choose, the only variation would be increase the number of fighters or decrease the number of fighters.

Yeah, sure... who actually cares about wounded troops? They become important when trying to score points against the government, but when push comes to shove the government regardless of party will do the same.

As for NATO... well we need to worry about ourselves first as the organized cold war era NATO is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Soon NATO will be an alliance without the coordination of capabilities...

I would reming you thery also make an F/A 18 E which is single pilot. As per usual you might like to have a few tandem seat aircraft for training, but not essential in this modern world of simulators. As to two engines, I reckon if I had my ass strapped in one heading across the arctic or the atlantic, I might feel better. The stealth doesn't work on the 35, and I don't think we need it anyway. As for it's engine, they have driven up the temperature in that thing to the point the blades have to be coated in ceramic because wew don't have metal capable of withstanding such temps. If the ceramic cracks the (only) engine comes apart. Now I'm really not comfortable. And can you imagine the inspection cycle on such a thing! Fly it an hour and then spend ten with a boroscope making sure nothing got ingested to chip a turbine blade. Oh yeah and then there is the cost. No thanks.

[Guest Derek L]

I would reming you thery also make an F/A 18 E which is single pilot. As per usual you might like to have a few tandem seat aircraft for training, but not essential in this modern world of simulators.

The F/A-18F is not "tandem" to serve as a trainer, but to decrease pilot workload and allow the GIB to operate the weapons, hence the moniker, Weapons System Officer………With more modern electronics, namely the Distributed Aperture System, the F-35 is able to achieve the same effectiveness as earlier tandem seat aircraft, with a single person.

As to two engines, I reckon if I had my ass strapped in one heading across the arctic or the atlantic, I might feel better.

Why? The USAF, Danes and Norwegians have been operating single engine F-16s in those very conditions for decades………As to the United States Navy and Marine Corps with various other single engine aircraft for decades also.

The stealth doesn't work on the 35, and I don't think we need it anyway.

How do you know the stealth doesn't work?

As to need, you clearly have not read the requirements of the RCAF for the Hornet replacement.

As for it's engine, they have driven up the temperature in that thing to the point the blades have to be coated in ceramic because wew don't have metal capable of withstanding such temps. If the ceramic cracks the (only) engine comes apart. Now I'm really not comfortable. And can you imagine the inspection cycle on such a thing! Fly it an hour and then spend ten with a boroscope making sure nothing got ingested to chip a turbine blade. Oh yeah and then there is the cost. No thanks.

I don’t know why this is a contention with you, fore ceramic thermal barrier coatings have been in use in both turbojet and turbofan engines since the 1960s……..You should be worried if the next time you're flying in a 747 or A310 that the engines are not thermal protected.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

How do you know the stealth doesn't work?

how do you know... how does anyone know... if the stealth does work? Oh right, which LRIP is that again? Don't hesitate to enlighten us/me again - why does Canada need a (presumed) stealth plane? Beware of stealth killers, hey? And by the by, what's with all the Super Hornet upgrade stuff... that stealthy Super Hornet thingee? And what's up with the USN upgrading all those Super Hornets? Is this the USN doing another reality check against the F-35B?

[Guest Derek L]

how do you know... how does anyone know... if the stealth does work?

Precedent with preceding Lockheed designs....

Oh right, which LRIP is that again?

The exterior shape has been steadfast since the X-35 became the F-35...

Don't hesitate to enlighten us/me again - why does Canada need a (presumed) stealth plane?

Beware of stealth killers, hey?

Like?

And by the by, what's with all the Super Hornet upgrade stuff... that stealthy Super Hornet thingee?

Boeing's marketing arm.

And what's up with the USN upgrading all those Super Hornets?

Which upgrades do you speak? The USN has ceased developmental funding on the Super Bug.........Any Super-Duper-Uber-Hornet is paid for by Boeing alone.

Is this the USN doing another reality check against the F-35B?

The USN won't be operating the "B"........Your thinking the "C".......None the less, the USN just stood-up their first squadron a few weeks ago:

For Waldo:

FLY NAVY

[venson]

Don't forget that the Serbs had success against American stealth aircraft in 1999 with obsolete SA-3s. It would be a very dangerous move to put faith in the F-35's stealth technology in a combat situation involving an S-400.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't forget that the Serbs had success against American stealth aircraft in 1999 with obsolete SA-3s. It would be a very dangerous move to put faith in the F-35's stealth technology in a combat situation involving an S-400.

Mole Cricket 19...they claimed the same thing. Deadly Russian SAMs...yada, yada, yada.

[Army Guy]

How long will the F-35's stealth technology remain effective? I don't think Canada needs the F-35 - looking at the country, a tough twin-engined fighter with a long range would prove far more effective. Something like the Super Hornet, Rafale or Eurofighter. The French are more than satisfied with the Rafale and aren't rushing into developing stealth aircraft.

And look at Russia and how effective its MIG-31s and SU-27s are proving at patrolling the massive expanses of airspace there. The F-35 is too expensive and is not an aircraft that suits Canada's needs. The added safety of two engines, more fuel and weapons would be far more effective in my opinion.

I think that tech is going to develope as with anything else on the aircraft. The Airforce who fly Combat missions for a living seem to think it is the best choice, what is it that you know that they do not.

Have you compared the range of F-18 to the F-35, last time i checked the F-35 had much better range.

Why would the french bother they just spent huge amounts developing the Rafale,and is not due for replacement until 2040...besides the rafale is 1980's tech, with production beginning in 1992, and then again in 1997, with production completed in 2011... could they even build more Aircraft....

The total programme cost, as of 2010, was around €40.690 billion, which translated to a unit programme cost of approximately €142.3 million. The unit flyaway price as of 2010 was €101.1 million for the F3+ version.[2] The following year, the French Senate revised the programme cost up to €43.56 billion for 286 fighters, which translates to a unit price of €152 million. This figure takes in account improved hardware of the F3 standard, and which includes development costs over a period of 40 years, including inflation.[45]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Design_phase_and_prototype

In case you did not see the price that is 152 million EURO per aircraft, what does that translate into Canadian dollars....oh did they mention that France is the only NATO member flying these....and production is already done. It would still be cheaper to buy the F-35 don't you think....

[Guest Derek L]

Don't forget that the Serbs had success against American stealth aircraft in 1999 with obsolete SA-3s. It would be a very dangerous move to put faith in the F-35's stealth technology in a combat situation involving an S-400.

The downing of the F-117 was a more complex event then a failure of technology, but a failure of operational doctrine that allowed the strike packages flown by the F-117 to repeatedly traverse the same narrow corridor within enemy airspace………The same failure that lead to numerous downing’s of American aircraft over Vietnam.

That being said, the latest generation of Russian air defence weapons is roughly on-par with the early Blocks of the American Patriot missile systems…..As such their proliferation will quickly degrade the effectiveness of “4th generation” aircraft.

[AlienB]

From what I have read of the the cuts they are mostly aimed at administration, and services. However, one must realize a chuck of the defence budget went to Afghanistan. There is talk much of the savings will be found in not having any major deployments.

Technology is changing quickly.

The Rafale is still in development.

The F35 isn't done development either.

This is why I support a limited acquisition and wait and see approach. Likewise conversion of the CF-18's to drones.

The F-35 is too unknown. It is best to wait for the US invasion of syria or Iran to see how it performs.

It just makes no sense to put all in. While Canada does need aircraft for some roles. There is no foreign deployment it is needed for in the short term. The US has more than enough of them to bomb 3rd world countries with.

My gosh, if the US ain't interested in bombing that undeveloped state, I gasp to think Canada would want to.

Edited October 21, 2013 by AlienB

[Army Guy]

From what I have read of the the cuts they are mostly aimed at administration, and services. However, one must realize a chuck of the defence budget went to Afghanistan. There is talk much of the savings will be found in not having any major deployments.

Technology is changing quickly.

The Rafale is still in development.

The F35 isn't done development either.

This is why I support a limited acquisition and wait and see approach. Likewise conversion of the CF-18's to drones.

The F-35 is too unknown. It is best to wait for the US invasion of syria or Iran to see how it performs.

It just makes no sense to put all in. While Canada does need aircraft for some roles. There is no foreign deployment it is needed for in the short term. The US has more than enough of them to bomb 3rd world countries with.

My gosh, if the US ain't interested in bombing that undeveloped state, I gasp to think Canada would want to.

Yes most of the cuts are aimed at adminstration, but also targeted are operating and maintence,while there may be some room to cut administration at the higher headquaters level, the operating and maintence budgets are critical to maintaining training and operating the equipment we need to train with...those are already cut to the bone. further cuts will only decrease our forces ability to provide trained soldiers...it also effects the forces to deploy any where including here at home.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/26/military-cuts-canada_n_2768190.html

Most of the cost saving from being deployed to afghan have already been been used up, shifted into procurment projects, or giving more training funding. there is no large savings here.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/18/canada--budget-military_n_2902963.html

While the rafale is still in delopment that costing i provided is just for the 40 years of development costs it does not include any operating costs over the same period which would drive this price over the top, well past the F-35.

While true the F-35 is not finished it's development , the program has shown that costs are going down not up, and those costs include operational costs for 42 years...

Waiting for drone tech to mature is a gamble, replacing the F-18 with a drone based airforce is not there yet, nor on the short term radar for atleast another 10 years...The Airforce has alrady studied this in great detail, our next fighter is going to be manned....it also needs to be able to survive in a drone enviroment, one look at our procurement process will tell you that....it is this histroy of buying or replacing equipment that is driving the need for a 5 th gen A/C, while today those new 4 or 4.5 gen aircraft look attractive, will they be able to do the job in 30 to 40 years...The airforce does'nt think so...

I done 3 tours in Afghan, and if there was one thing we all wished we had over there was our own air cover....Canadian pilots with a vested interest in keeping Canadian soldiers alive.... Not saying allied pilots did not do that, but there was some issues....

While the US airforce does have plenty of aircraft to use world wide, in any major campaign it still relies on allied aircraft to fill in the gaps...Canada has signed on to defense agreements , which gives us the responsabilty to live up to our end of the bargin....which in the last 40 years it has not even come close...