Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 1489

Thread: Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

  1. #401

    Default

    Wow you really don't get it do you.

    As to using drop tanks, how often do CF18's fly around the Canadian arctic dropping expensive empty fuel tanks on long range patrols
    they don't, they burn that fuel first and if interdiction is necessary then they would drop them.

    You really think that any airforce does regular patrol flights with a full arms load?

    Really, Really...if somebody here has an imagination it's you!

    Manned surveillance means immediate reaction and makes a statement.

    Drone, UAV surveillance means a long wait for eyes on target...great for some stuff, lousy for a lot.

    No plane meets all requirements.
    Well you got that right...which is why the compromises of the F-35 make it the wrong tool for our job particularly at the price.

  2. #402

    Default

    [QUOTE=moahunter;438505]
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Moa, is it of some relevance or important to you that you refer to Col. Maillet (Ret.) as the 'green candidate'? Is his political affiliations important to you?
    Given his bizare coments that suggest that he thinks the Superhornet is not a short range aircraft, but the F35 is (bpeters: I've read the article, where does he say this?), and that we could scrap replacing the plane altogether (no, he suggests purchasing the latest advanced e/f version of the CF-18 not scrapping a replacement), I think its reasonable to conclude that his being a green candidate wanting more health care and schools rather than military spending (nope, I interpret his comments to going with latest CF-18's (a less expensive alternative) and with the billions saved put that into other programs)could have something to do with his views. Whereas, the Candian Forces have consistently said they want the F35. But you keep thinking a Colonel with a vested interest in getting elected for the Green party (he's a two time loser in politics, really? this is what he came up with to sway some votes? really moa?)doesn't have a vested interest, but that the Canadian Forces Generals and their staff who recommended the F35, not to mention the RAF staff, and RAAF staff, and US Marines Staff, and USAF, and US Navy staff, are all incompetent. (I didn't say they were, but those sure are a lot of acronyms that may also have a vested interest. Can only be national security. got it.)

    ./QUOTE]
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  3. #403

    Default

    It's this sort of quote by Stephen Harper that Moa appears to favour:

    "“We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.”"
    - Speaking about the American led Iraq War.

    Of course, a while later he was saying this:

    “On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.”

    And then finally this:

    "It was absolutely an error. It's obviously clear the evaluation of weapons of mass destruction proved not to be correct. That's absolutely true and that's why we're not sending anybody to Iraq."

    Of course, if Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister at the time we would have been in Iraq as he makes clear in this letter to the Wall Street Journal:

    "Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake."

    Canada needs an air force that is focused first on the needs of Canada, not on following America into whatever situation they deem fit to enter.

  4. #404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    they don't, they burn that fuel first and if interdiction is necessary then they would drop them.
    It makes more sense to have an aircraft that has a longer range without having to use drop tanks (which also enables it to fly in Stealth/Lo), and on the odd occasion an interdiction is neccessary, use the CC-150T air-to-air refueling tankers on the return flight (the tankers worked very well in Libya). And, keep in mind, the F35 will also be able to carry drop tanks when needed for the odd mission just like the CF18's (but will have a vastly superior range, given it has a longer range without drop tanks):

    The F-35 is not limited to internal fuel only; it can carry 600-gallon external drop tanks for ferry flights or for missions that do not require a stealthy signature.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-35a.htm

    One of the interesting things is that the F35A's will need for Canada to be modified to US Navy refueling standards (which is what Canada uses - i.e. likely matching the F35C).

    As to flying manned patrols, that's why we have the Auroras. Whether they will be replaced by a manned aircraft, or unmaned, is something I understand hasn't been decided yet. I expect politically a Bombardiar based aircraft may replace them, which might be why Canada pulled out of the Global Hawke program, and hasn't been part of Boeings Poesidon (737 based) program.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2012 at 08:50 AM.

  5. #405

    Default

    It makes more sense to have an aircraft that has a longer range without having to use drop tanks (which also enables it to fly in Stealth/Lo), and on the odd occasion an interdiction is neccessary, use the CC-150T air-to-air refueling tankers on the return flight (the tankers worked very well in Libya). And, keep in mind, the F35 will also be able to carry drop tanks when needed for the odd mission just like the CF18's (but will have a vastly superior range, given it has a longer range without drop tanks):
    a) Using the air to air refueling...so we add another 5 crew members and all the ops cost of a large aircraft to the cost of doing regular patrols.

    No economic or operational sense to that methodology and restricts the operations of the AC.

    b) We have already been through the range issue and the CF-18 has the longer range, more even that what is published for the F-35C which is reputed (see link above) to be the longest range version.

    As to flying manned patrols, that's why we have the Auroras. Whether they will be replaced by a manned aircraft, or unmaned, is something I understand hasn't been decided yet. I expect politically a Bombardiar based aircraft may replace them, which might be why Canada pulled out of the Global Hawke program, and hasn't been part of Boeings Poesidon (737 based) program.
    a) Auroras are great aircraft for the long range patrol work such as part of the sovereignty patrols, fisheries, environmental but they are not a rapid response aircraft and they have virtually no air to surface or air to air interdiction capability.

    Great tool for it's design job but not as a defensive patrol aircraft.

    b) Much like using drones/UAVs you are also sending a different message, fighter patrols show a strong front and deterrent in place, patrol aircraft say we are watching.

    You need both to be effective as one does not replace the other.

    While the debate centres around the F-35 and fighter options what we really need is an overall co ordinated mission and plan for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

    Yes we need fighters, but we also need
    -New SAR aircraft, large and small
    -New Long range patrol aircraft
    -Better and more SAR helicopters and facilities that cover a broader range of our country
    -More heavy lift helicopters
    and other equipment and facility updates.

    The fighter is but one necessary facet....blow it all there the rest suffers

    Its the old 5 Ps
    Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

    This whole conversation shows that is not happening and to me its look to be about having a toy like the Cool Kids.

    When we need a co ordinated and unified force to deal with the issues on the shelf.

  6. #406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It makes more sense to have an aircraft that has a longer range without having to use drop tanks (which also enables it to fly in Stealth/Lo), and on the odd occasion an interdiction is neccessary,......
    So using your scenario of the 'odd occassion' of an interdiction, why the importance and 'damn the cost' need for stealth/LO, which seems to be alledged calling card of the F35?

    And define odd occassion? Is it 1/100 sorties has the possibility of a confrontation?, 1/10?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  7. #407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    This whole conversation shows that is not happening and to me its look to be about having a toy like the Cool Kids.
    Bingo!
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  8. #408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    So using your scenario of the 'odd occassion' of an interdiction, why the importance and 'damn the cost' need for stealth/LO, which seems to be alledged calling card of the F35?
    The F35 was designed to have a low maintenance cost (e.g. one engine), and to be easy to work on. However, Lockheed has made a mess of the project to date. We don't really know what the cost per plane will be, originally, it was going to be very similar to Superhornets. I think if the cost is excessive and the time line to slow, Canada should consider an altenrative. Not because the F35 isn't a great plane though, we will be getting something inferior but cheaper. If we wanted something superior, like F15SE, it would cost more.

  9. #409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The F35 was designed to have a low maintenance cost (e.g. one engine), and to be easy to work on.
    Just like the F-22 was to have a high serviceability rate.
    Commonalities of Stealth aircraft:
    F-117 maintenance pig
    B-2 maintenance pig
    F-22 maintenance pig

    All good aircraft for their intended mission, but there is a pattern.
    Chances are as with it's predecessors...the F-35 will be...

    However, Lockheed has made a mess of the project to date.
    I disagree, I don't think Lockheed has made a mess of things, the project is following the pattern of most new aircraft/new technology.

    The problem was the various vested interests thinking it could really jump from drawing board/proof of concept aircraft to production without these issues...yet the JSF project mandated the process.

    Lockheed will eventually get it sorted and it will be a good aircraft for it's designed mission, I have faith in Lockheed and their history, but the timing expectations and the process were out to lunch and I do not believe it is the correct aircraft for "our mission".

    I think if the cost is excessive and the time line to slow, Canada should consider an altenrative. Not because the F35 isn't a great plane though, we will be getting something inferior but cheaper. If we wanted something superior, like F15SE, it would cost more.
    I think we need to get the right aircraft for our job, our mission and quit with this superior/inferior game.

    - Publicly and precisely define the mission to be fulfilled
    - Publicly and precisely define the number needed to really fulfill the mission
    - Find the correct aircraft to fulfill our mission
    - Negotiate a cost/benefit program (prefer license build) to fit our realistic budget constraints
    - Buy them/Build them

    If the mission requires more than one type...so be it.

    But get it done in an open and clear means while informing the public of all but the "secret" details of the actual aircraft.

    My opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 27-04-2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason: spelling

  10. #410

    Default

    ^all planes today can fly multiple missions. It would incredibly stupid to design a Jet Aircraft for example, for the sole purpose of patrolling the Canadian North, when future governments might decide they do or don't want to get involved in a particular operation internationally. More specialized aircraft today, are also more expensive aircraft (fewer built = less recovery of R&D = higher per unit cost).

    Canada has defined its core missions, and yes, they aren't what you perhaps want, but they are what this Government which has been elected has decided is most appropriate. The key is flexibility becasue we can't fortell the future, not even you Tom:

    These priorities are underscored in the CFDS by the core missions of the Canadian Forces. An independent fighter jet capability has proven crucial to the success of each of these missions, as follows:

    1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD;

    As part of Operation Noble Eagle, NORAD’s mission to safeguard North American skies, CF-18s maintain a constant state of alert, ready to respond immediately to potential threats to continental security.

    North American Aerospace Defense Command launched three pairs of fighters on September 28, 2006 from the command's Canadian NORAD Region and the Alaskan NORAD Region in response to Russian aircraft that penetrated North America’s Air Defense Identification Zone.

    2. Support a major international event in Canada; CF-18s provided around the clock support to the 2010 Olympic Games in British Columbia, keeping skies safe for athletes and spectators from around the world.

    3. Respond to a major terrorist attack; Canadian CF-18s formed part of the immediate response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The Commander in Chief of NORAD asked that Canadian air sovereignty assets be available as required following the attacks.

    4. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period;
    In 1999, Canada sent 18 CF-18s to support of Operation Allied Force, the NATO-led air campaign over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    In 1991, Canada sent 24 CF-18s to Qatar to participate in the US-led Desert Shield and Desert Storm campaigns during the Gulf War. Canadian Air Force pilots flew more than 5,700 hours and 2,700 sorties.

    Canada also had CF-18s on stand-by to support the multi-national fighter jet task force in Afghanistan – ready at a moment’s notice; our allies know they can count on Canada to support them.

    5. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods. Canada is fully committed to providing CF-18 aircraft in support of NATO when required. Additionally,
    Canada commits CF-18s to the NATO Response Force on a bi-annual basis. This is a robust and credible high readiness force that quickly deploys in support of the full spectrum of NATO missions.

    ******************

    Canada’s Air Force requires a fighter aircraft that is flexible enough to take on the evolving threats and missions of today and the future.

    Some of the threats faced by the CF-18 in the 1980s and 90s have faded, others have persisted, and new ones have emerged.

    There may very well be threats in the coming decades which we cannot possibly foresee today, but for which we must be prepared to respond.
    http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/p.../roles-eng.asp
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  11. #411

    Default

    Great

    Now they need to make it actually public so everyone knows.

    But lets look at the missions:

    In my highly biased opinion.

    These priorities are underscored in the CFDS by the core missions of the Canadian Forces. An independent fighter jet capability has proven crucial to the success of each of these missions, as follows:

    1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD;

    As part of Operation Noble Eagle, NORAD’s mission to safeguard North American skies, CF-18s maintain a constant state of alert, ready to respond immediately to potential threats to continental security.

    North American Aerospace Defense Command launched three pairs of fighters on September 28, 2006 from the command's Canadian NORAD Region and the Alaskan NORAD Region in response to Russian aircraft that penetrated North America’s Air Defense Identification Zone.

    2. Support a major international event in Canada; CF-18s provided around the clock support to the 2010 Olympic Games in British Columbia, keeping skies safe for athletes and spectators from around the world.

    3. Respond to a major terrorist attack; Canadian CF-18s formed part of the immediate response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The Commander in Chief of NORAD asked that Canadian air sovereignty assets be available as required following the attacks.
    All of these missions are domestic defensive missions...as I have said sovereignty patrol.

    Requiring an aircraft with the range, safety, maneuverability and weapons systems to be effective.

    Stealth is {in my opinion} of limited use in this role, when we are patrolling we want them to know we are up there and a aggressor will know there will be a response so in this case the best defense is having them know we are there...the weapons systems and pilot training become the advantage.

    In short...a long range air superiority fighter and a sufficient number to be a deterrent, not a token effort.

    Not a "mud mover"

    4. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period;
    In 1999, Canada sent 18 CF-18s to support of Operation Allied Force, the NATO-led air campaign over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    In 1991, Canada sent 24 CF-18s to Qatar to participate in the US-led Desert Shield and Desert Storm campaigns during the Gulf War. Canadian Air Force pilots flew more than 5,700 hours and 2,700 sorties.

    Canada also had CF-18s on stand-by to support the multi-national fighter jet task force in Afghanistan – ready at a moment’s notice; our allies know they can count on Canada to support them.

    5. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods. Canada is fully committed to providing CF-18 aircraft in support of NATO when required. Additionally,
    Canada commits CF-18s to the NATO Response Force on a bi-annual basis. This is a robust and credible high readiness force that quickly deploys in support of the full spectrum of NATO missions.
    Other than the mention of CF-18s in Qatar these have been "mud mover" missions which requires a different kind of aircraft to truly be effective and as Canada has operated in a supporting role the need for stealth is insignificant.

    So our contribution could just as easily be as a supporting fighter cap, requiring an air superiority aircraft with sufficient endurance and range to be effective with weapons systems to do the job needed.

    So even within the direct context of the mission statement you have provided an aircraft biased to the air superiority role is the obvious choice in meeting.

    1) The defined domestic needs and meeting our NORAD commitments.

    2) The defined international NATO commitments, just in a different capacity.

    Which comes back to what I have said all along.

    The F-35 will be a fine aircraft when debugged and fit the needs of its mission.

    But it is not the aircraft for our mission.

  12. #412

    Default

    Gee Moa

    After responding I clicked your link...you should have included the first paragrapgh.

    The Canadian Forces’ defence priorities, as articulated in the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) are to: defend Canada; defend North America; and contribute to international peace and security.
    Kinda sums up what I have been saying all along "defend Canada; defend North America"

    Which the F-35 as a multi role aircraft biased to supporting missions is not the best choice.

    In my opinion [edit]
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 27-04-2012 at 03:20 PM.

  13. #413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The F-35 will be a fine aircraft when debugged and fit the needs of its mission.

    But it is not the aircraft for our mission.
    Really? Well, given the F35 is designed to replace all of the roles performed by the F16 and F18 currently for the US military (Navy, Air Force, and Marines), why do you think its not good enough for Canada given we did very well with the CF18's? Its an evolution to replace the CF18, i.e. a better small multirole fighter that is a newer generation with Stealth/Lo capability, better range (it can carry drop tanks to), and vastly superior radar/electronics.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2012 at 03:22 PM.

  14. #414

    Default

    Really? Well, given the F35 is designed to replace all of the roles performed by the F16 and F18 currently for the US military (Navy, Air Force, and Marines), why do you think its not good enough for Canada? Its an evolution on the CF18, i.e. a better small multirole fighter that is a newer generation with Stealth/Lo capability and better radar/electronics
    Range
    Speed
    Maneuverability
    Single crew operation (2 crew much better option, but not as sexy)

    Radars, weapons systems can be adapted to any airframe and upgraded as time passes.

    Its an evolution on the CF18
    No its not...the F-18 series was always geared to be a multi mission "mud mover" for all forces.

    The F-16 was the "close in dog fighter" and the F-15 "air superiority".

    Which as I see it supports my earlier comments regarding overhauling/adapting existing airframes that can meet the need with new weapons systems and radars and adding them to the existing fleet.

    Increasing both numbers and capability.

    my opinion

  15. #415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Its an evolution on the CF18
    No its not...the F-18 series was always geared to be a multi mission "mud mover" for all forces.

    The F-16 was the "close in dog fighter" and the F-15 "air superiority".
    You need to learn a bit more about aircraft history Tom, both the F16 and F18 were designed to compete for the US Air Force contract for a cheaper multi role fighter aircraft to operate in conjunction with the F15's which would provide air superiority. This was seen as a cost effective approach, Hi-Lo - a few dominant aircraft (F15) supported by many cheaper and reasonably capable aircraft (F16 or F18 ). F16 won for the air force, but the F18 won for the Navy. Now, to replace the F16 and F18, the JSF program was started. The JSF was never originally intended to replace air superiority role of F15, although it turns out that it is performing better than expected in air combat (which was partially why the US decided not to keep producing the very expensive F22). The F35 program was also always designed to be lower cost than F22, with less high tech stealth coatings that are easier to maintain and are allowed to be exported out of the US. As you say though, it isn't all about money, at some point we need to balance cost, with what will keep our pilots alive in the future for combat missions:

    Based on the debate around the F-35s, one might conclude that everyone from the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Opposition and most newspaper editorialists, the answer is cost. We should hold an open competition and choose the cheapest fighter good enough to do the job.

    Rubbish.

    Why?

    We are on the cusp of a great change in fighter jet technology. The old standard, so-called fourth generation, still has some life in it, but it will soon be in its dotage. Fifth generation jets have information technology, weaponry, stealth capabilities and other overwhelming advantages. Yes, not all the bugs have been worked out, but they will be. The stakes are simply too high. America is getting out of the fourth generation business and putting all its eggs in the F35 basket. It will not fail to solve the plane’s problems.
    http://www.troymedia.com/blog/2012/0...excited-about/

    There some nice new videos and photos of the web of the C varient flying in formation (there is a little Canadian flag on the Jet intake, along with other partners):



    This is the projected future opposition that it will need to face with the help of F22's. Notice the PAK-FA is Stealth/LO, it will slaughter a Superhornet before it is even seen by one:

    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2012 at 04:18 PM.

  16. #416
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    You need to learn a bit more about aircraft history Tom
    This is hilarious.

  17. #417

    Default

    You beat me to it Marcel.

    time to pull the chute moa. really.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  18. #418
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    You need to learn a bit more about aircraft history Tom
    This is hilarious.

  19. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    You need to learn a bit more about aircraft history Tom
    This is hilarious.
    Agreed, Tom's job makes it all the more amusing that he doesn't know the history of both F18 and F16 being derived from aircraft that competed for the same US Air Force contract (YF16 and YF17) - i.e. designed for same purpose, and the subsequent evolution of both aircraft to performing similar multirole missions, one for the Air Force, one for the Navy (who refused to naval-ize the F16 as single engine). The JSF program was to avoid that duplication of development cost (up front and when future weapons are designed) by having Boeing and Lockheed compete up front for the contract to replace both aircraft for Navy and Air Force. It was agreed by Navy, Marines and Air Force, based on modern performance of single engines today, that single engine was better choice even for carrier work. Lockheed won the competition. The F35 is the replacement plane for F16 and F18 (in A and C configuration, B is to replace Harriers), it is vastly better than both, a generation ahead. It is more expensive than both though, as it is at the start of its life cycle, not the end. Where Canada can buy in the life-cycle significantly effects the price, delays in the F35 program, increase the cost assuming we can't keep the CF18's flying much past 2020 (which depends also on whether they could be upgraded, or flying hours reduced to preserve their lives).
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-04-2012 at 09:37 AM.

  20. #420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    You need to learn a bit more about aircraft history Tom
    This is hilarious.
    Agreed, Tom's job makes it all the more amusing that he doesn't know the history of both F18 and F16 being derived from aircraft that competed for the same US Air Force contract (YF16 and YF17) - i.e. designed for same purpose, and the subsequent evolution of both aircraft to performing similar multirole missions, one for the Air Force, one for the Navy (who refused to naval-ize the F16 as single engine). The JSF program was to avoid that duplication of development cost (up front and when future weapons are designed) by having Boeing and Lockheed compete up front for the contract to replace both aircraft for Navy and Air Force. It was agreed by Navy, Marines and Air Force, based on modern performance of single engines today, that single engine was better choice even for carrier work. Lockheed won the competition. The F35 is the replacement plane for F16 and F18 (in A and C configuration, B is to replace Harriers), it is vastly better than both, a generation ahead. It is more expensive than both though, as it is at the start of its life cycle, not the end. Where Canada can buy in the life-cycle significantly effects the price, delays in the F35 program, increase the cost assuming we can't keep the CF18's flying much past 2020 (which depends also on whether they could be upgraded, or flying hours reduced to preserve their lives).
    No whats hilarious is you believe what you read on the web without cross checking the information.

    Tom's job makes it all the more amusing that he doesn't know the history of both F18 and F16 being derived from aircraft that competed for the same US Air Force contract (YF16 and YF17) - i.e. designed for same purpose, and the subsequent evolution of both aircraft to performing similar multirole missions,
    While the YF-16 and YF-17 competed for the same contract initially they quickly went their different ways

    the F-16 went on to develop as the close in fighter and later modified to act as a rather so-so mud mover when they kept trying to retire the A-10.

    The A-10 that keeps coming back from retirement.

    Northrop's YF-17 was a very very different bird than what became the F-18.

    Northrop was absorbed by MD and went after the contracts for both the US Navy and other countries such as Canada. To do it they made so many changes to both the mission profile that it required a complete redesign of the aircraft to tailor it to the "bomber" side of the performance equation.

    Far from "incredibly stupid" to desisgn to narrower mission profiles history and combat has shown that the more "multi" you make an aircraft the more it becomes mediocre at all of its missions.

    There have been rare exceptions such as the Mossie and a very select few others. There have been far more failures following the multi mission logic.

    The JSF program was to avoid that duplication of development cost (up front and when future weapons are designed) by having Boeing and Lockheed compete up front for the contract to replace both aircraft for Navy and Air Force. It was agreed by Navy, Marines and Air Force, based on modern performance of single engines today, that single engine was better choice even for carrier work.
    There were far more competitors that Boeing and Lockheed...they were the finalists (try watching Battle of the X-Planes for a quick overview)

    At the start of the JSF program the Navy was told they wold get a single and like it. Much the same process as happened with the original F-111 which was eventually a Naval failure due to weight and other issues.

    I also have to laugh at your opinions on where combat aircraft are heading...you might try reading more that wiki and sites that support your opinions, better yet crack a book to get a real look at where things have been and are heading...might try "Full Circle".

    But frankly this conversation, like lrt and some others is now going circular and the fact is the government is going to do what it wants and the pilots/crews will get what it gets.

    Just like the with the NFP in the 70s...cause ya see Moa I was CAF at that time and watched the performance and it too was a joke.

  21. #421
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Agreed, Tom's job makes it all the more amusing that he doesn't know the history
    No, it's hilarious because you think that a few minutes of Googling and Wiki'ing somehow qualifies you to lecture and belittle someone who has spent a lifetime on the subject.

    As Tom pointed out, the F-18 ended up being a much different plane than the YF-17 in terms of size, capability and role.

  22. #422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Northrop's YF-17 was a very very different bird than what became the F-18.
    .
    It was navalized, made heavier, bigger fuel tanks, stronger undercarriage, etc., much like how there is a Naval version of F35. This would have happened to the F16 if it had been selected. Thought was given to producing different variants for different roles, but it was decided one variant of F18 would do. It was never designed to perform more or less roles than F16 though like you claimed, both planes started out as pure fighters (one for airforce, one for navy), and both evolved into multi-role aircraft, i.e. both became more capable of more missions. Even the F15 was later modified to have strike variants / be able to perform more missions, it is accepted doctrine (proven in modern combat) that multi-role aircraft are more useful than single purpose like the old interceptors Canada used to fly, but were incapable of joining allies in war zones. CF18 with its multiple role over time was far more useful to Canada, Canadian pilots experienced far more missions than previous specialized choices (which mostly dont exist today for fighters - just look at how Euro fighter is being revised to be more like Rafale). Now both F18 and F16 are intended to be replaced by F35, which will also evolve over time. And, yes, I have seen the documentary you refer to.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-04-2012 at 02:25 PM.

  23. #423

    Default

    It was navalized, made heavier, bigger fuel tanks, stronger undercarriage, etc., much like how there is a Naval version of F35.
    Different fuselage
    Different air intake system and position (farther forward) and design of intakes
    Complete redesign of wing to strengthen, add additional hard points, reposition CofG
    Different tail set up to offset the other mods
    Different cockpit and nose design

    Happen to have models of both and have read the background.

    Plus the Navalizing

    I'm now done thanks for playing because as I said the conversation is now circular and they are going to do whatever they want anyway.

    My opinion

    Over and out

  24. #424

    Default

    OTTAWA — Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said during a radio show Saturday that it looked like the government was keeping “different books” on F-35 budgeting — one for public consumption and another for internal planning.

    Still, he said during an an interview on CBC Radio’s The House that he didn’t do “victory laps” after the recent auditor general’s report seemed to vindicate projections he had previously made about the government plan to buy F-35 fighter jets.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04...ic-kevin-page/

  25. #425
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    And on a slightly related note...

    Some Pilots Want to Avoid F22
    Some of the nation's 200 F-22 Raptor pilots want to be moved into other jobs because of oxygen-deficit problems with the stealth fighter, an Air Force leader ... told reporters that a "very small" number of pilots have asked not to fly the fifth-generation fighter jets or to be reassigned.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/a...1#.T5_wgvWpM4K

  26. #426

    Default

    ^they were grounded for 4 months becuase of the issue. Its unclear if its a technical problem, or simply that the human body can't endure the performance levels that the F22 achieves. At some point, UCAV's will be more capable than manned aircraft because of this reason.

  27. #427

    Default Auditor "got it wrong" - DND

    In his opening remarks, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps made it clear that in the eyes of National Defence, the F-35 remains the only fighter jet to meet Canada’s needs in coming decades. He said as other militaries are fielding increasingly advanced technologies, Canada must obtain a “fifth generation” fighter jet, such as the F-35, which is deemed to be vastly superior to existing fighter jets.

    Under questioning by MPs, Lt.-Gen. Deschamps, the head of Canada’s air force, said the military is still working toward acquiring a fleet of F-35s.

    “Currently, from an air force perspective, we are focused on delivering a transition to the F-35,” he said.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2418936/

  28. #428

    Default

    F-35 will be classed as 5th. generation; however, the F-18 E with AESA radar, the latest avionics package, and more it essentially becomes a 4.5 or a 4.75 generation aircraft, but not as sneaky.

  29. #429

    Default

    It appears that DND had something to hide.

    Page says DND only gave him partial F-35 costs
    The Department of National Defence only gave partial information to parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page when his office was preparing its report on the costs of the F-35s in 2011, he testified Thursday.

    Page and his assistant budget officer Sahir Khan told MPs on the public accounts committee that they have now learned in the wake of Auditor General Michael Ferguson's report released in April that they didn't get all the information they asked DND for when Page's office was trying to calculate the full life cycle costs of the planes the government is considering buying to replace the CF-18 fleet, as per a request from the Commons finance committee.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...e.html?cmp=rss

  30. #430

    Default

    ^the whole thing is a bit silly, even if we purchased Superhornets, nobody could accurately say what the full life cycle costs will be. For example, Superhornets may need more electronics upgrades in the future than an F35, as aside from its radar, it is a generation behind in its computer technology (F35 is being designed for future combat network integration). We simply don't know how technology is going to develop over the next 20 or 30 years, and what the cost of any fighter jets will be.

    You just have to look at the CF18's when they were purchased, and the major weapons system upgrades they have had over their life, especially the incremental modernization project. Nobody could have predicted what that would be, or what it would cost, when the aircraft were acquired, many of the technologies in a CF18 today simply didn't exist and weren't required when the CF18's were purchased.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-05-2012 at 10:44 AM.

  31. #431

    Default

    It's silly to keep information from the Auditor General? They didn't hide his coffee cup. They kept financial information from the representative of the government who's job it is to know such things.

    Brushing off $10 Billion as "silly" is just trying to minimize the impact. How many other departments could mislead Parliament, and by extension the taxpayers, and simply have it brushed aside as "silly"?

    They were warned about this previously and, at the time, claimed that they would follow the AG's instructions as to how such accounting was to be conducted and reported. Why aren't they?

  32. #432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    They were warned about this previously and, at the time, claimed that they would follow the AG's instructions as to how such accounting was to be conducted and reported. Why aren't they?
    The AG has asked for them to provide something that is impossible to do, a full lifecycle costing. AG is the one who is wrong here, just because someone is an accountant, doesn't mean they are competent. As to which costs to include, costs that would exist regardless of the plane chosen (like pilot earnings) are irrelevant for decision making purposes of which plane to select.

  33. #433

    Default

    Tell you what, let's just give the military a blank cheque and let them get what they think we need.

    Sorry, the people decide the mission and what equipment is provided, not the military. When the AG or the Parliamentary Budget Office request numbers, you give them to them. It's not up to DND to decide what is relevant or not.

  34. #434

    Default

    Apparently Peter MacKay and DND have trouble with any sort of financial reporting.


    OTTAWA — Amid allegations the Conservative government intentionally lowballed the price of the F-35 stealth fighter project, newly released National Defence documents indicate the full cost of last year's Libya mission was nearly $350 million — seven times what Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Canadians it cost.

    "As of Oct. 13, the figures that I've received have us well below ($60 million), somewhere under $50 million," MacKay told the CBC on Oct. 28, three days before the mission officially ended. "And that's the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission."





    Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/True+cost...#ixzz1uWNCMpxE

  35. #435

    Default

    ^I hate the way the media spin these things. Yes, it looks like the price was lowballed, it was $100m. It was not $350 million though, because even if Canada hadn't sent the planes it we would have been on the hook for the remaining $250m (i.e. that's standard operation cost of having an air combat arm).

    Militaries cost money. Keeping them oeprationally effective / world class, and contributing our fair share to NATO, also costs money.

  36. #436

    Default

    Yes, it's the media that's saying all these awful things. Bad media. Bad, bad media.

    Steve Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, the Ottawa-based think tank that discovered the Defence Department figures, alleged that the discrepancy is yet another example of MacKay and the military trying to hide the truth.

    "Just like the F-35, Minister MacKay has been caught lowballing costs and minimizing overspending in his department, to the point now where I think a lot of Canadians are questioning his credibility and whether we can continue to believe his funny numbers," Staples said.


    University of Ottawa defence expert Philippe Lagasse said there is an underlying culture within the Defence Department of hiding full costs to Parliament and the public.

    "This has been an ongoing problem," he said. "It's linked to departmental culture. We've seen this for a number of years and on a number of files. And it's linked up in the nature of what they do."

  37. #437

    Default

    ^so what do you think? Can you think without the help of the media? Is the price of the Libya conflict:

    - the $100m extra we had to pay the military (and yes, this was lowballed by Defence it seems), or
    - the amount we would have paid the military anyway even if we hadn't gone, plus the $100m?

  38. #438

    Default

    I think that it was double what Peter MacKay told us just 3 days before it ended.

    The all in cost is there so that you can compare apples to apples. It's a standard practice. You seem to prefer the airline pricing model. Your ticket costs $500 dollars but it really costs you $800 to fly.

    Can you think without the Conservative talking points memos?

  39. #439
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    In this case, moahunter is correct. The incremental cost of 100 million is the "true" cost of the Libya mission. However, that still leaves the question of why it was budgeted at 60m and claimed by McKay to have come in at 50m. That's still a huge discrepancy.

  40. #440

    Default

    ^its dumb as well. I doubt anyone really cares if its $50m, $60m or $100m, but they do care about getting the wrong numbers. The department needs a shake up, I don't think McKay will be its minister for much longer.

  41. #441

    Default

    I used to think MacKay was a shoe-in for next leader.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  42. #442

    Default

    F-35 project ready for its last rites






    The Harper government is still scuffling around on the F-35 fighter jets, trying to pretend the acquisition remains a viable option.
    It should abandon that effort. It is time to cut its losses, to admit that, back in 2006, in its early days as a new and inexperienced administration, it made a catastrophic error by signing on to the U.S. controlled and manipulated Joint Strike Fighter program. It compounded that error by trying, repeatedly, to hide the true costs of the F-35 from Parliament and the public; but no amount of bookkeeping jiggery-pokery can camouflage the deception.
    The government should concede that this white elephant — or “supersonic albatross,” as they are calling it in the United States — which is useless for most Canadian purposes and far too expensive for the national treasury, will never see service with the RCAF. If the price tag doesn’t kill it, the performance deficiencies or production delays will (it’s already nine years behind schedule and counting).
    This baby is ready for the last rites.

    http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion...its-last-rites







    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #443

    Default

    one more

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #444

    Default

    Auditor refutes defence brass on F-35 cost calculations
    Ferguson returns to public accounts committee to explain more findings on fighter jet purchase


    Auditor General Michael Ferguson responded directly to officials from the Defence Department today, disputing their contention that they aren't required to count the full costs of a project like the F-35 fighter jet procurement.

    "I am concerned with suggestions that accurate estimation and the inclusion of personnel, operating and maintenance costs are not important, since they would be incurred regardless of the aircraft selected to replace the CF-18," Ferguson said in his opening remarks to the House of Commons public accounts committee Tuesday.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...e.html?cmp=rss

  45. #445

    Default

    ^the Auditors logic here would only make sense if it was a valid option to scrap the combat air arm altogether. Assuming it won't be scrapped, then the cost of the F35's should not include the basic cost of maintaining an Air Combat Arm regardless of the aircraft chosen.

    Got the feeling this Auditor General didn't listen very carefully when he did Finance 101 at University. Not the brightest spark I think.

  46. #446
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Got the feeling this Auditor General didn't listen very carefully when he did Finance 101 at University. Not the brightest spark I think.
    What an asinine thing to say. For one, all he was asking is that Defense follow it's OWN procurement policies, as well as Treasury's. Which it didn't. So I guess everyone in the Canadian government is not the "brightest spark."

    For another, if he's such an *****, why then did the Conservatives choose him for the job, especially considering the furor over his not being bilingual? We were told he was a spectacular candidate for the position and that him not being bilingual is well down the list of criteria for the position.

    So are you saying moahunter that the Conservative government chose a bumbling ***** for the position? If so, should they not also bear responsibility for that? Or do they get a pass there as well?

  47. #447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So are you saying moahunter that the Conservative government chose a bumbling ***** for the position? If so, should they not also bear responsibility for that? Or do they get a pass there as well?
    Per his actions to date, yes, they did screw up. I expect this guy has rarely in his life been involved in cost estimation, decision making, and the principals behind it. They should have picked someone bilingual with more brains, or even an anglophone who is a bit smarter.

    This is basic finance, its not rocket science. You don't include fixed costs that won't vary with a decision, when making a decision. When I buy an auto for example, I don't worry about how much the insurance costs, unless that insurance level will change (in which case I factor in the variance). The fixed portion of the insurance, or the licence cost that is the same regardless, is only relevant if its an option to scrap owning a car.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-05-2012 at 11:35 AM.

  48. #448

    Default

    It sounds to me like you're talking about MacKay and the DND.

    These same issues were raised a number of years ago and the Conservatives said that they agreed with the AG's findings and would follow his standards for reporting lifetime costs.

    Let's look at MacKay's accounting expertise:
    "Last June, at the height of the conflict in Libya, when Parliament was debating whether or not to extend Canada’s contribution to the mission by another three months, MacKay was asked to calculate the monetary cost. His estimate was roughly $60 million for a full six-month operation. That same month, the Rideau Institute, an independent Ottawa-based think-tank, released its own estimate of $85 million for the same six-month mission.

    When asked to comment on the projected difference, MacKay smugly retorted, “The Rideau Institute, as so often is the case, is wrong."

    Ironically, if one factors in the additional month of combat operations that was required beyond the Rideau Institute’s initial projection, the think-tank’s prediction was only off target by two per cent.

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion...accountability

  49. #449
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Per his actions to date, yes, they did screw up. I expect this guy has rarely in his life been involved in cost estimation, decision making, and the principals behind it. They should have picked someone bilingual with more brains, or even an anglophone who is a bit smarter.
    lol, it's kind of sad that you continually make such sweeping statements that have no basis in reality. How does 25+ years as an auditor, comptroller and deputy minister of Finance at the provincial level rates as "rarely involved"?

    By all appearances he's doing his job quite well in exposing intentional attempts by the government to cloud issues of costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    This is basic finance, its not rocket science. You don't include fixed costs that won't vary with a decision, when making a decision. When I buy an auto for example, I don't worry about how much the insurance costs, unless that insurance level will change (in which case I factor in the variance). The fixed portion of the insurance, or the licence cost that is the same regardless, is only relevant if its an option to scrap owning a car.
    Once again, that is NOT the policy of Defense or Treasury for procurement. If the Conservatives or MacKay don't agree, they should change the policies. They have made no mention of doing so. Andrew Coyne put it quite well (and takes apart your silly car analogy, to boot):

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-peter-mackay/

    While various ministers, including the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, have said they accept the Auditor-General’s directive that all costs should be included, they have also derided it as at best a wholly “new way of doing business,” and a strange one at that. The same homely analogy to buying a car has been raised, repeatedly, as if to suggest how ridiculous it would be to add up all the costs of a car over its expected life beforehand.

    The government, and the Minister of Defence in particular, has maintained this position, notwithstanding long-established Treasury Board policy requiring, in line with the Auditor-General, that the cost of assets be stated in “life cycle” terms, that is including “all relevant costs over the useful life of the acquisition.” It has done so, what is more, in defiance of its own internal accounting, as documented both by the Auditor-General and in news reports from 2010, in which the missing $10-billion is included. That is to say, the government kept two sets of books on the project, one for private purposes showing the cost as $25-billion, the other for public purposes putting it at $15-billion, yet still maintains it had no intent to deceive: that it was just a difference of opinion, a dispute about accounting.

    Now, it is possible that a minister could be so ill-briefed that he would never have heard of “life cycle costing,” though the concept has been around for decades; that he would not know it was the standard, not only at Treasury Board, but across NATO. And I suppose it is possible for a government to be so confused that it would both apply and not apply the concept at the same time, particularly if it was unclear that this was something that was required of it, rather than simply good practice.


    But it is not possible to believe this, once you understand that in fact there is no difference of opinion: that the policy of accounting for all the lifetime costs of an asset, without exception, is not some crazy invention of the Auditor-General’s, or some musty Treasury Board guideline. It is the publicly stated policy of the Department of National Defence — the department of which, if memory serves, MacKay is the minister. The policy the minister sees fit to ridicule is, according to conventional constitutional doctrine, his policy.
    But please, keep re-hashing the same discredited arguments, while waging ad-hominem attacks on the Auditor General that have zero basis in reality and that would have been dispelled had you spent 15 seconds Googling his name.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 15-05-2012 at 12:25 PM.

  50. #450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    lol, it's kind of sad that you continually make such sweeping statements that have no basis in reality. How does 25+ years as an auditor, comptroller and deputy minister of Finance at the provincial level rates as "rarely involved"?.
    I edited that before you posted, also checked his wiki page. Still, this is basic finance, and its really pathetic that he doesnt understand it. Sure, check all the burecratic boxes are ticked, but in terms of what the public should be informed, the true cost, even under life cycle costing for decision making, is the incremental cost, not including costs we will pay regardless of what decision is made.

    Definition of 'Incremental Analysis'
    A decision-making technique used in business to determine the true cost difference between alternatives. Incremental analysis ignores sunk costs and costs that are the same between the two alternatives to look only at the remaining costs. For this reason, it is also called the "relevant cost approach," "marginal analysis" or "differential analysis."
    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/...#ixzz1uxqcc9VQ
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-05-2012 at 12:29 PM.

  51. #451
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    You know what's pathetic? That you can't seem to understand that the government was required by it's own policies to report full life cycle costs in accordance with Treasury guidelines, and that when this issue was raised in the past National Defense agreed to do so. This isn't something new, or different, or mysterious.

    The Auditor General does not make that policy. He is following it, as he is required to. It's not his decision to make.

    Please, read that Coyne article start to finish. He is far from a partisan hack, and in fact falls very much on the conservative side of the political spectrum. But he knows BS when he smells it.

    Further, how exactly do you do an incremental analysis of alternatives, when there is no alternative being costed? The military will not and cannot use the F-18's past 2020 or so without incurring significant costs to upgrade and replace the fleet. Was there another analysis done on that? No? Then how could an incremental analysis provide any useful information whatsoever?
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 15-05-2012 at 12:34 PM.

  52. #452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    The Auditor General does not make that policy. He is following it, as he is required to. It's not his decision to make.
    He clearly doesn't understand what lifecycle costing is for decision making, you need to set a realistic basic reference against which you are comparing. He is claiming that reference should be not having fighter jets at all. The MOD, is correctly stating the reference is versus choosing another fighter jet - i.e. the incremental costs of F35 versus status quo of what CF18's cost today. The idea that it should be compared to dumping the air combat arm altogether is ludicrous, that's not a realistic option.

    I'm not saying MOD got this all right, they didn't. They could for example have ran a comparison to buying Superhornets, and should have presented more analysis. But, the Auditor Generals approach is giving rise to stupidly expensive figures that aren't relevant at all unless we were to dump having fighters altogether. I fear that's where this type of analysis will lead, we may end up finding out that supposedly F35's cost more than $300m (when you throw everything but the kitchen sink in, including for example the Commander of the Air Forces bonus), without it being pointed out that the existing CF18's are also a similar price, and that Superhornets or some other option would also be a similar price.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-05-2012 at 01:08 PM.

  53. #453

    Default

    Even if they broke the rules and didn't do the full costing as required by law, how would we know what they were using in a comparison between F-35's and SuperHornets? The whole game was rigged from the start that the only plane considered was the F-35. Yes, the previous Liberal government joined the consortium but the Conservatives were the ones that locked us into the program. There were no comparisons done because DND and the minister decided what plane they wanted from the get-go. Costs didn't enter into it. When the costs of the program started escallating they gave the public low-ball figures and we called on it by the AG. In typical Conservative fashion they then blamed the messinger even though they had previously said that they would use the legally required accounting method to estimate costs.

  54. #454

    Default

    ^I agree they should have a ran a comparision. The result could have been the same (just look at Japan which chose F35 recently). The MOD stuffed up on this, they got the green light originally from the Liberals for the F35 (based off the JSF trials that were done between Boeing and Lockheed), then the MOD pushed that forward on the Conservatives (who just accepeted, to some extent I think due to industry pressure).

    By contrast, the Conservatives did a very good job of having an independent analysis for the Naval ships contract. For some reason that procurement turned out well, and this one has become a mess. The only difference I see, is that the Conservatives "inherited" F35 project, whereas, the Naval procurement was a new initative by them, it was done right from the outset.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-05-2012 at 01:16 PM.

  55. #455
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    He clearly doesn't understand what lifecycle costing is for decision making, you need to set a realistic basic reference against which you are comparing.
    For about the tenth time: That. Is. Not. His. Mandate.

    His mandate is to ensure that the procurement process and information releases were in accordance with government policies. Policies that he does not set. The government and department were clearly playing fast and loose with the long established rules upon the AG's review, and he said so.

    Somehow in your mind, that means that he doesn't know what he's doing. Even though he did what he's supposed to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    He is claiming that reference should be not having fighter jets at all. The MOD, is correctly stating the reference is versus choosing another fighter jet - i.e. the incremental costs of F35 versus status quo of what CF18's cost today. The idea that it should be compared to dumping the air combat arm altogether is ludicrous, that's not a realistic option.
    Everything you said there is factually untrue. Both the PBO and the Auditor General have stated that the MOD and the politicians speaking on its behalf have not played by the rules dictated to them by Treasury and the MOD's own policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    without it being pointed out that the existing CF18's are also a similar price, and that Superhornets or some other option would also be a similar price.
    Considering that no tender process was done (since the MOD conveniently circumvented the required process by claiming that the F-35 was the only plane that could possibly meet the hand tailored requirements), it is completely unfounded to claim that the Superhornet or any other plane would be "similar" in price. There is no basis upon which to make that claim, whatsoever.

  56. #456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Considering that no tender process was done (since the MOD conveniently circumvented the required process by claiming that the F-35 was the only plane that could possibly meet the hand tailored requirements), it is completely unfounded to claim that the Superhornet or any other plane would be "similar" in price. There is no basis upon which to make that claim, whatsoever.
    Its not whats been claimed. If you started with a blank sheet of paper today, and said "how do I evaluate all the alternatives", you don't start from zero and include costs that exist today that have no relevance to the aircraft being chosen. You look at changes from the costs today. That's what the F35 analysis was (albeit it poorly done), a look at the lifecycle cost of moving from the status quo today where we have an air combat arm (i.e. a baseline from which to compare any aircraft purchase to, this doesn't mean status quo of CF18's is viable forever moving forward), to owning F35's for 30 years (or Superhornets, or whatever). Not the lifecycle cost of instead scrapping the entire air combat arm versus buying new aircraft, that's a different analysis that adds no value. The Treasury doesn't say you have to do that, its certainly not what was done with the ship building contract pricing (which doesn't include the costs of current saliors ).

    A good example would be if a Government decided to fund building a Hospital to replace an existing one already filled with staff. The building will cost $200 million, add lifecycle costs to maintain it, perhaps another $2million per annum above the existing Hospital. Also, if the Hospital will have new functionality with new doctors and procedures, their salaries could be included. It makes no sense however to tell the public the hospital will actually cost $10 billion though, because of the price of salaries of existing hospital staff and the procedures they do. That's just deception, nobody would tolerate it for a hospital, but for some reason AG thinks its an appropriate base line for a combat aircraft to consider such an alternative.

    As to whether the Superhornet (or another aircraft like Rafale) would be similar in price or not, we don't know, I agree a comparaitive analysis should have been done, ideally way back when Lockheed won the JSF program. For all we know, the Superhornet may have cost more, because if it becomes obsolete in 20 years time, it may have been stupidly expensive to upgrade. That's what the MOD didn't do, they should have looked at it properly, and have shot themselves in the foot. AG is criticising the wrong things.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-05-2012 at 07:06 AM.

  57. #457

    Default

    I like the cartoon. The beaver is cute...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #458

    Default

    RCMP conducted 5-month probe into leaked F-35 story

    The Harper government called in the RCMP to investigate a politically embarrassing story involving the decision to sole-source the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter, claiming it was a breach of national security, The Canadian Press has learned.

    The first RCMP member to review the allegation on July 8 was mystified as to what the issue might be.

    "By reading the article, it is unclear how the info, interferes with the development of weapons or jeopardizes the safety of Canada," said the summary file, which rated the preliminary investigation as a medium priority.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...robe-leak.html

  59. #459

    Default In the news

    The total lifecycle cost for the entire American fleet is estimated to be US$1.51 trillion over its 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway estimated that his country's 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...5_Lightning_II


    Conservatives to eliminate SIN card in latest cost-cutting move

    The federal government’s months-long cost-cutting spree killing unnecessary wallet stuffers has claimed the life of yet a third victim: the SIN card.
    Canadians will no longer receive the red-and-white plastic cards, which display a nine-digit social insurance number, but lack high-tech security features found in other identification, such as driver’s licenses and credit cards.
    Plans were unveiled Tuesday at the Senate finance committee as parliamentarians continue to discuss Bill C-38, the Tories’ omnibus budget legislation. The cut will save taxpayers roughly $1.5 million a year, the committee heard.

    http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/...t-cutting-move

    Wow, a whole $1.5M in savings!

    That will save enough money to run the F-35 program for 10 more hours

    The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B- model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-a-10-371985/


    This

    $197M/plane

    Is not a suitable replacement for this unstealthy but effective...


    1970's technology at $12M (1994) per plane


    Lockheed F-35 workers ready for long strike, union says
    (Reuters) - Unionized workers on strike against Lockheed Martin Corp over healthcare benefits and pensions are prepared for a long work stoppage, a top union official said on Tuesday as the company said it would be able to keep operations running.
    Nearly 3,650 union workers walked off the job on Monday at the Fort Worth, Texas, plant where Lockheed builds the new F-35 fighter plane and at two military bases where it is tested.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O04520120425
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #460

    Default

    ^very silly comparisons PRT. The SIN card is being scrapped because of identity fraud risks of them ending up in wrong pockets. The A10 is an amazing plane at what it does, esp. at firing depleted uranium shells from its gattling gun to bust tanks, and enemy encampments in urban settings, but is totally unsuitable for intercepting Russian Bombers, or flying over Libya from Italy. It was always a bit silly that Marines and UAF suggested F35 should replace this role of the A10. The A10 isn't the right plane for Canada.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-05-2012 at 12:30 PM.

  61. #461

    Default

    Don't shoot the messenger. It was not me who made the comparison with the A-10. Anyway, the F-35B could not outperfom the A-10 for the intended role against ground targets.

    The F-35B's are not too good as a interceptor for Russian Bombers since the Russians are no longer a threat and the F-35B's don't have the range required.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-05-2012 at 02:13 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #462

    Default

    ^Canada is buying F35A's which have a longer range than the current CF18's (which recently intercepted a Russian bomber approaching Canadian airspace) . F35's can carry drop tanks just like the CF18's to extend range even further.

    Japan has just selected the F35A stating they needed a long range aircraft. They selected it ahead of the Eurofighter, and Superhornet:

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/wo..._131586737.htm

    Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, which had been reviewed along with Boeing's FA-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, will replace the country's 40-year-old fleet of F-4s
    South Korea is currently holding a contest between F15SE, F35, and Eurofighter, it will be interesting to see which wins:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2...-list-is-long/

    The UK has just announced they will choose the F35B jump jets for their carriers (as too costly to upgrade the new carriers for F35C, they have flipped back to original plan).
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-05-2012 at 02:27 PM.

  63. #463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Canada is buying F35A's which have a longer range than the current CF18's (which recently intercepted a Russian bomber approaching Canadian airspace) . F35's can carry drop tanks just like the CF18's to extend range even further.

    Japan has just selected the F35A stating they needed a long range aircraft. They selected it ahead of the Eurofighter, and Superhornet:

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/wo..._131586737.htm

    Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, which had been reviewed along with Boeing's FA-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, will replace the country's 40-year-old fleet of F-4s
    South Korea is currently holding a contest between F15SE, F35, and Eurofighter, it will be interesting to see which wins:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2...-list-is-long/

    The UK has just announced they will choose the F35B jump jets for their carriers (as too costly to upgrade the new carriers for F35C, they have flipped back to original plan).
    Thats funny

    As the Lockheed mag we just received at the museum indicates Korea is building its own indigenous fighter based off the trainer strike aircraft they build.

    Yep South Korea builds its own supersonic aircraft...what a concept

  64. #464

    Default

    ^^I am not comparing the F-35 to our current F-18's

    As far as range, the F-35 has far less range than something like the F-15 and most jets require in-flight refueling to have enough range in Northern combat operations. If you are looking at range, one should consider the F-35C or the proposed F-35I, two seat version.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #465

    Default

    ^C has similar, or possibly less range than the A. It costs more and is optimized for carriers, so has larger wings to allow it to fly at slower speeds, that's not something Canada needs, as we don't have aircraft carriers.

    I agree F15SE would be a great choice, but:

    1. It will cost more than F35, and
    2. It is still just a concept (whereas F35's are already going through fine tuning in the US, with all the bugs being ironed out).
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-05-2012 at 04:44 PM.

  66. #466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Yep South Korea builds its own supersonic aircraft...what a concept
    It will take a decade or more before commercial models, its still in early stages, hence they need an aircraft before than. Also, they likely aren't building it on their own, they are trying to form a consortium of a few nations, with Turkey and Indonesia interested. It is questionable whether it will actually succeed, as South Korea may not be able to get some of the technology they need.

    It is a strategy that accepts both technical and political risks. For the programme to succeed, South Korea must depend on a series of favourable decisions by potential partners, from Indonesia to Turkey to - despite the programme's indigenous technology goals - the export control regimes of Europe and the USA.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ighter-363847/

    South Korea is already linked to Boeing and the F15SE, so it wouldn't surprise me to see them select this option, but we will see.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-05-2012 at 05:01 PM.

  67. #467

    Default

    Moa
    It will take a decade or more before commercial models, its still in early stages, hence they need an aircraft before than. Also, they likely aren't building it on their own, they are trying to form a consortium of a few nations, with Turkey and Indonesia interested. It is questionable whether it will actually succeed, as South Korea may not be able to get some of the technology they need.
    I think you should probably drop in and pick up a copy (I think there are a few left), I'm surprised Lockheed doesn't have an on line version.

    South Korea has had their advanced trainer/Strike aircraft in production for sometime and apparently a very effective aircraft...designed with Lockheed's assistance.

    The full fighter version is expected in production very soon right down to the advanced AESA style radar systems etc.

    Yes they are building it on their own, but already have potential customers.

    All from little old South Korea

  68. #468

    Default

    ^Ill look for it. Most of their current force is a mix of F16's and F15 varients.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-05-2012 at 10:07 AM.

  69. #469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    All from little old South Korea
    1.5x our population, massive homegrown high-tech r&d and manufacturing light years beyond what we have here, and heavy industrial to boot... nothing little about South Korea at all.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  70. #470

    Default

    Dialog

    That comment was sarcasm to an extent.

    But to your comment.
    1.5x our population
    In the grand scheme of things 40 million population is little and the standard of living etc is far lower than ours.

    massive homegrown high-tech r&d and manufacturing
    All things we have/had here in electronics, aerospace, hydraulics and virtually every other facet.

    heavy industrial to boot
    Pretty much the same story as above.

    The overall point being there is no reason we could not do the same and grow our own industries through the indigenous manufacturing and retention of the dollar spent in our own economy.

    Tom's opinion

  71. #471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Dialog

    That comment was sarcasm to an extent.

    But to your comment.
    1.5x our population
    In the grand scheme of things 40 million population is little and the standard of living etc is far lower than ours.

    massive homegrown high-tech r&d and manufacturing
    All things we have/had here in electronics, aerospace, hydraulics and virtually every other facet.

    heavy industrial to boot
    Pretty much the same story as above.

    The overall point being there is no reason we could not do the same and grow our own industries through the indigenous manufacturing and retention of the dollar spent in our own economy.

    Tom's opinion
    My opinion

    The past doesn't really speak to our present ability to resurrect many of these industries (I don't think we're anywhere near their electronics manufacturing capabilities) and the process would be far more problematic than you suggest.

    But hey, if budgets were blown within our economy that would be a start.

    My opinion
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  72. #472

    Default

    ^From an industry perspective, the approach of encouraging Canadian companies to take part in US contracts makes a lot of sense I think. We have some good aerospace industry out East (and some scatterings elsewhere), but it isn't in producing fighter jets, other than certain components.

    Efforts spent on trying to do that, don't make a ton of sense versus areas where Canada is doing well (like the regional jets, etc.). Canada will never be a major exporter of fighter jets no matter how much money goverment throws at it. I very much doubt that South Korea will succeed either, but good for them to risk their publics money.

  73. #473

    Default

    Moa
    We have some good aerospace industry out East (and some scatterings elsewhere), but it isn't in producing fighter jets, other than certain components.
    You do realize that Bombardier is, the last I checked, the largest producer of business jets in the world when all subsidiaries are counted.

    The leap in airframes from a Mach .92 Biz Jet construction to a Mach 1.4/1.5 fighter is only a small step.

    L-3 Down east has been doing all of the retubs for the RAAF F-18As. that is the core structure that the balance of the airframe attaches to, the complicated bit.

    I could go on but you get the point.

    Efforts spent on trying to do that, don't make a ton of sense versus areas where Canada is doing well (like the regional jets, etc.). Canada will never be a major exporter of fighter jets no matter how much money goverment throws at it. I very much doubt that South Korea will succeed either, but good for them to risk their publics money.
    Moa, you realize that it has been military jet technology and development that has allowed the advance of biz jets. The original Lear Jet wing came from a canceled Swiss fighter program! There are many other examples of the same tech swap and reapplication.

    In addition the J-79 engine program by Orenda still casts benefits as the J-79 is still a popular engine for electrical power generation, both primary and back up (the largest rebuilder is in Ft. ST. John BC! S&S Turbine).

    Bombardier has owned Canadair for many decades, Canadair built over 1800 fighter aircraft.

    And that is not taking into account the effect of the money being spent remaining in Canada, the technology generated going into non military Canadian products or the Canadian jobs created.

    Good lord you seem to think we are incapable of anything complicated when in fact we have been one the leaders in Aerospace at virtually every level.

    I'm done

  74. #474
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    314

    Default

    I've just tuned in and had many JSF dialogs on other forums. I'll back moahunter on his stance on the F-35. It'll smoke the Hornet in range and many other evolutionary technologies. Mr. Hinderks history as he applies it is a little fogged. Sorry buddy but stick to the "over and out" theory please!

  75. #475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aviationphoto View Post
    I've just tuned in and had many JSF dialogs on other forums. I'll back moahunter on his stance on the F-35. It'll smoke the Hornet in range and many other evolutionary technologies. Mr. Hinderks history as he applies it is a little fogged. Sorry buddy but stick to the "over and out" theory please!
    Nah don't think so

    But we won't know till its over and in service.

  76. #476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aviationphoto View Post
    I've just tuned in and had many JSF dialogs on other forums. I'll back moahunter on his stance on the F-35. It'll smoke the Hornet in range and many other evolutionary technologies. Mr. Hinderks history as he applies it is a little fogged. Sorry buddy but stick to the "over and out" theory please!
    Welcome aviationphoto, Problem is, what are you backing? "What is moa's stance on the F-35?"
    moa seems to argue against anything derogatory said about the F-35, yet at different points in the thread said he prefers the Superhornet, Rafale, F-15, I'm sure even the Eurofighter. Pick your horse moa. Or don't. you started the thread.
    And the title of this thread is "Which Jet Fighter should Canada choose?" Not which jet fighter has the most gadgets.

    avphoto, most on this thread tend to put the mission first(whatever you deem it to be) or support a previously mentioned mission, then select the appropriate tool for the job. its just opinions.
    So perhaps share your idea of Canada's mission regarding the role of our air force, both domestic and abroad, select your fighter and tell us why.

    Most on this thread probably follow, like you, other discussions on the F-35 and if needed we could start another thread solely to discuss that particular aircraft. But why bother.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  77. #477

    Default

    ^The F35 is without question technically the best plane available for the Canadian Forces that is affordable (F15SE might be interesting, but it will likely be more costly). It is an evolution of current US multi-role fighters, all the lessons learned from modern combat are being applied to it.

    But, I don't think the F35 program has been run very well, and I would be open to a cheaper option as an interim fix until the F35 is in later stage production, if we don't have time to wait / maintain existing CF18's. Similar to what Australia has done with some Superhornets until F35 is available (although Australia had a more urgent need than we do). If we choose Rafale or Superhornet though, we will be getting a lessor plane, that won't perform as many missions as well, and may become obsolete sooner in many combat zones, including defending NORAD airspace. And, it might be a short term cheaper fix, longer term the F35 might actually cost less, depending on how technologies evolve.

    I think a proper revisit of other options is worthwhile given all the delays in the program, but I don't think it should be pre-judged that the F35 is the wrong choice. The program seems to be quietly doing a bit better recently. And I don't think any options should be costed against the option of scrapping the force altogether, but rather, against status quo, as we need an air combat arm. I don't want to lose it because the AG demands an inappropriate baseline that overstates the costs of any option, I want something to replace the CF18's, perhaps the last manned fighters until air combat is automated.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-05-2012 at 12:27 PM.

  78. #478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^The F35 is without question technically the best plane available for the Canadian Forces that is affordable (F15SE might be interesting, but it will likely be more costly). It is an evolution of current US multi-role fighters, all the lessons learned from modern combat are being applied to it.

    But, I don't think the F35 program has been run very well, and I would be open to a cheaper option as an interim fix until the F35 is in later stage production, if we don't have time to wait / maintain existing CF18's. Similar to what Australia has done with some Superhornets until F35 is available (although Australia had a more urgent need than we do). If we choose Rafale or Superhornet though, we will be getting a lessor plane, that won't perform as many missions as well, and may become obsolete sooner in many combat zones, including defending NORAD airspace. And, it might be a short term cheaper fix, longer term the F35 might actually cost less, depending on how technologies evolve.

    I think a proper revisit of other options is worthwhile given all the delays in the program, but I don't think it should be pre-judged that the F35 is the wrong choice. The program seems to be quietly doing a bit better recently. And I don't think any options should be costed against the option of scrapping the force altogether, but rather, against status quo, as we need an air combat arm. I don't want to lose it because the AG demands an inappropriate baseline that overstates the costs of any option, I want something to replace the CF18's, perhaps the last manned fighters until air combat is automated.
    But is it 'technically the best plane available'? That's the question. Hell, it isn't even 'available'. Something tells me Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and others didn't order up some F-15SE just to replace them with F35's in ten years.
    Agree on the debacle known as JSF. Overhyped, overpromised, and overconfident. I'm good with a stopgap until the F35 is bugged out, but a 3 variant aircraft? Again, what is our mission in and for Canada? and is stealth really necessary for that mission and role?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  79. #479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Again, what is our mission in and for Canada? and is stealth really necessary for that mission and role?
    All planes today are multi-mission, we don't just have one mission as evidenced by all the activities of the CF18's. As to stealth being necessary, in the future, yes, for air defence of Canadian skies and over the arctic it will be (along with high tech electronics integration into satelites and similar, which the F35 is a generation ahead on). How soon that obsolesence will arise is an open quesiton, it all depends on how soon the PAK-FA goes into production. The Russians (and perhaps Indians, re HAL FGFA) are aiming for selling export variants around 2025, i.e. soon after or about the time we would get F35's. Superhornets, other 4.5g aircraft and CF18's will become obsolete though, just like the Starfighters did.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-05-2012 at 02:25 PM.

  80. #480

    Default

    what is this high tech electronics integration the F35 is a generation ahead on? is this the same tech that's in development, is not ready, may not be ready, all assuming they get it right, right?
    As Marcel mentioned, stealth may not be the 'it'. We're talking Libya, Aghanistan, like stealth would be necessary? really? One day of F15/CF18 and A10 sweeps, threat neutralized. Who are we trying to be stealthy from? the Bear? China?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  81. #481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Again, what is our mission in and for Canada? and is stealth really necessary for that mission and role?
    All planes today are multi-mission,
    that's the problem with the F35. Sorry, one of them. 'one jet fits all' mentality.
    3 variants off one airframe? and the most complex version with the fewest prospective buyers continually has its special requirements forced upon the other, larger-build aircraft in the form of design limitations, compromised structure, increased cost, increased “concurrency, delayed testing, etc.?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  82. #482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Again, what is our mission in and for Canada? and is stealth really necessary for that mission and role?
    All planes today are multi-mission,
    that's the problem with the F35. Sorry, one of them. 'one jet fits all' mentality.
    The F35A is designed to do exactly the same missions that the F16's currently do in the US, and the CF18's do in Canada, just with a longer range, and more modern technology to cope with, and be enhanced by, recent advances. Lockheed is not producing an aircraft worse than their fighter the F16, the F35 is designed to beat it in every respect, which is important because in future war zones like Libya, we will be facing F16 class or better aircraft. Your criticisim on multi-role could equally be applied to the current CF18's, which have been Canada's most sucessful aircraft since WWII when you look at the variety of missions they have performed succssfully over their life.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-05-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  83. #483

    Default

    "more modern technology to cope with, and be enhanced by, recent advances." Again, what are these advances? and more importantly, when? Most people's complaints with the JSF program is the amount of money being put into it and no extra value. But please go on about the 'extra value' over and above that a tooled out (by tooled out I mean cutting edge latest avionics, RCS reduction, etc, on a PROVEN airframe,) F15 won't offer.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  84. #484

    Default

    ^I don't know why you want Canada to spend more on an F15 (which is a more expensive aircraft), most people seem to want us to spend less. As to capability, I suggest you check out the Lockheed Martin site:

    Virtually undetectable to an enemy that cannot hide, the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A gives the U.S. Air Force and allies the power to dominate the skies – anytime, anywhere. It’s an agile, versatile, high-performance 9g multirole fighter that provides unmatched capability and unprecedented situational awareness.

    The F-35A’s advanced sensor package will gather and distribute more information than any fighter in history, giving operators a decisive advantage over all adversaries. Its tremendous processing power, open architecture, sophisticated sensors, information fusion and flexible communication links make the F-35 an indispensable tool in future homeland defense, joint and coalition irregular warfare, and major combat operations.

    The F-35A brings unparalleled performance to any theater in any conflict against any threat.
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/pro...l-variant.html

    There are plenty of videos of it flying as well, it will be well tested and proven by the time Canada purchases. The only issue is whether it is in a low cost of production tranche or not.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-05-2012 at 12:03 PM.

  85. #485

    Default

    anyway, I didn't want to get into the F35 debate, I'm certainly not qualified to really critique the aircraft in any substantial way. But it seems our govts position is the implied notion that "if we don't have the latest, greatest fighter, we'll lose". JMO. It is simply not correct. And to disguise it with "its the best plane for our needs". What the?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  86. #486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I don't know why you want Canada to spend more on an F15 (which is a more expensive aircraft), most people seem to want us to spend less. As to capability, I suggest you check out the Lockheed Martin site:

    Virtually (bp: but not totally. some AESA combined with lower-band radars and counter-Low RCS and guess what? I can see you)undetectable to an enemy that cannot hide, the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A gives the U.S. Air Force and allies the power to dominate (really? Lockheed's own F-22 is widely regarded as the dominant fighter in the real world) the skies – anytime (perhaps, sometime), anywhere. It’s an agile, versatile, high-performance 9g multirole fighter that provides unmatched capability and unprecedented situational awareness.

    The F-35A’s advanced sensor package will gather and distribute more information than any fighter in history, giving operators a decisive advantage over all adversaries. Its tremendous processing power, open architecture, sophisticated sensors, information fusion and flexible communication links make the F-35 an indispensable tool in future (but not near future) homeland defense, joint and coalition irregular warfare, and major combat operations.

    The F-35A brings unparalleled performance to any theater in any conflict against any threat. (a bold statement for a aircraft that's not seen action, or a theatre, or a conflict, or a threat)
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/pro...l-variant.html

    There are plenty of videos of it flying as well, it will be well tested and proven by the time Canada purchases. The only issue is whether it is in a low cost of production tranche or not.
    Why would I bother with Lockheeds OWN site? Hellooo? what are they going to say? I bolded a few comments but everytime I read this, it reads like a automobile commercial (or Tony Stark).
    Last edited by bpeters; 25-05-2012 at 12:21 PM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  87. #487

    Default

    The Japanese commitment to the F-35 has been sited as a big plus for the aircraft so I found this interesting.

    According to Lockheed Martin's "Code One" magazine Vol 27, No 1, page 37

    The Japanese initial order is for (4) aircraft FY2012

    Can't imagine a better source of information that Lockheed's own magazine.

    Take it for what it's worth.

    Tom

  88. #488

    Default

    ^4 early (i.e. more expensive) models (likely for training) but 42 overall

    The report stated:

    Japan will pay an estimated $10 billion (¥802 billion) for its order of 42 F-35 stealth jets at a cost of roughly $240 million (¥19.2 billion) per plane, the U.S. Defense Department reported to Congress, revealing price projections for the first time.

    Tokyo has selected the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced by a U.S.-led consortium as its next-generation mainstay fighter over various other candidates, including the Eurofighter Typhoon that was aggressively promoted by a European group.

    Japan is hoping to procure four F-35s by March 2017, and the Pentagon is expected to start mass producing them at domestic plants in 2019 at the earliest.

    While the final, official sales price has yet to be disclosed, the Defense Ministry estimates the fuselage alone will cost around ¥8.9 billion [$111 million]. The sales price per unit includes training and other costs.
    http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Fede...an_to_buy_F35/
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-05-2012 at 08:36 AM.

  89. #489

    Default Gov’t moving on $3.8 billion purchase of search-and-rescue planes

    This might be the model for a revision to the fighter procurment:

    In contrast with the scandal-plagued F-35 jet fighter procurement process, and with previous plans to purchase SAR aircraft that never achieved liftoff, the government now intends to hold an open competition, modelled on last fall's successful shipbuilding contract process.


    The likely front-running contenders are Italy-based Alenia's C-27 J, Airbus Military's C-295 and Lockheed-Martin's updated C-130J Transport. Viking Air's DHC-5 Buffalo and Bombardier's Q400 turboprop also have been mentioned as possible candidates.
    ...

    In reality, there are two main contenders: Alenia's C-27J, still at the table after all these years, and Airbus's C-295. Both are twin-engined craft designed for search-and-rescue and air-ambulance duties. Lockheed-Martin is expected to pitch its four-engined C130J as an alternative, based on the argument that, though more expensive than the other two on a per-unit basis, it will be less costly to maintain because the RCAF already maintains a C-130J fleet.


    Bombardier's Q-400 (formerly the Dash-8 ) turboprop was deemed a contender, partly for domestic political reasons, in the first go-round back in 2005, and it may be a contender yet. However, the aircraft has no rear military ramp, which is considered a must-have for safe deployment of SAR techs, who often deploy by parachute in dangerous conditions.

    http://www.canada.com/news/moving+pu...194/story.html

    Some articles are also suggesting the V22 Osprey could be a contender (that has been a very troubled aircraft, although it seems to working better now). Given how much bad press the Osprey has had though, I'd be surprised if it has a chance.

    I like the Spartan's (C27-J), as they have same engines and systems as our Hercs.

    Last edited by moahunter; 30-05-2012 at 08:44 AM.

  90. #490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^4 early (i.e. more expensive) models (likely for training) but 42 overall

    The report stated:

    Japan will pay an estimated $10 billion (¥802 billion) for its order of 42 F-35 stealth jets at a cost of roughly $240 million (¥19.2 billion) per plane, the U.S. Defense Department reported to Congress, revealing price projections for the first time.

    Tokyo has selected the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced by a U.S.-led consortium as its next-generation mainstay fighter over various other candidates, including the Eurofighter Typhoon that was aggressively promoted by a European group.

    Japan is hoping to procure four F-35s by March 2017, and the Pentagon is expected to start mass producing them at domestic plants in 2019 at the earliest.

    While the final, official sales price has yet to be disclosed, the Defense Ministry estimates the fuselage alone will cost around ¥8.9 billion [$111 million]. The sales price per unit includes training and other costs.
    http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Fede...an_to_buy_F35/
    Not gonna argue, pick up the magazine, read the article.

    As written in the Lockheed magazine that is what is committed.

    Check it out for yourself.

  91. #491

    Default

    ^yes, its in that article I posted as well, "initial" order is for 4, followed by the rest of a later tranche when they go into production.

  92. #492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^yes, its in that article I posted as well, "initial" order is for 4, followed by the rest of a later tranche when they go into production.
    4, thats all ordered at this point according to the "Code One" article.

    Anything beyond that is uncommitted

  93. #493

    Default

    ^just like Canada's order.

  94. #494

    Default

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...f-35-purchase/

    Of course they are. does this surprise anyone?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  95. #495

    Default

    ^they will likely start again with a new process, so the whole thing is pointless. There is no right answer on the cost. And, I think they have accepted that the procurement process should change.

  96. #496

    Default

    OTTAWA — The Conservative government knew as far back as last year that Defence Department budget cuts had made its multi-billion-dollar shopping list of military equipment “unaffordable,” Postmedia News has learned.

    As a result, National Defence officials have been urging the government since May 2011 to push the reset button and re-evaluate “the level of ambition” for its vaunted plan to rebuild the Canadian Forces.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...ocuments-show/

  97. #497

    Default

    Cost for MacKay to ‘park his posterior’ in F-35 mockup: $47,000

    A 2010 news conference to announce Canada’s plan to buy 65 stealth fighters cost taxpayers more than $47,000, according to documents tabled in Parliament.

    The news from the July 16, 2010, event was only that the government intended to pursue a deal to purchase the advanced fighter-bomber, not that a contract had been reached. Mr. McKay said he wondered how such news could justify the expense.

    The resulting photos and news footage, which showed the minister sitting in the cockpit of the plane, have been resurrected virtually every time the F-35 makes news.
    That’s one expensive photo, the Liberals say.

    “I think in the military they call it the hero shot,” Mr. McKay said. “This was 47-grand for the minister to park his posterior in the airplane and smile for cameras.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4232307/

  98. #498

    Default Unmanned patrol ships on Canadian navy's radar

    I find the talk of robotoic ships a bit bizare. It is linked to huge staffing problems in the Navy right now (which is itself bizare given how much unemployment there supposedly is in our maritime provinces). I don't see why we would have robotic ships though, when you could instead fly some robotic global hawkes or similar, which will survey far more water far quicker than a robotic ship.

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...-radar-120604/
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-06-2012 at 05:23 PM.

  99. #499

    Default

    F-35 production worries U.S. Senate committee: ‘Potentially serious issue’ with warfare capability

    WASHINGTON — Canadians aren’t the only ones with misgivings about the proposed F-35 fighter jet procurement plan.

    The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday questioned the quality of production on the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, citing a “potentially serious issue” with its electronic warfare capability.

    “The committee is … concerned about production quality and whether it is sufficient to ensure the delivery of JSF aircraft to the U.S. and its allies at an affordable price,” the committee said in a report accompanying its fiscal 2013 defence budget bill.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...re-capability/

  100. #500

    Default

    ^to some extent Spin by the media, i.e. this bit wasn't highlighted in the headline:

    The Senate report said it was hopeful that the Pentagon’s new acquisition approach to the program — which more closely ties orders for future planes to contractor performance — would help address the software and production quality issues.

    But it said the approach required “a very clear, specific and realistically achievable set of performance criteria” that made it clear to Lockheed how its performance would be assessed.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...re-capability/

    All part of the negotiations on the US contracts - Lockheed is under a lot of pressure to improve performance / reduce costs.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •