F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
In the end I don't care what other countries purchase and at what price, that’s their business.
As a tax payer here in Canada I don't want to pay for an "unknown" aircraft and IMHO a fighter like the F-18 Super Hornet will do the job just fine at a lower acquisition price.
It will also be potentially safer operationally for our crews because of its twin engine design.
As a tax payer here in Canada I don't want to pay for an "unknown" aircraft and IMHO a fighter like the F-18 Super Hornet will do the job just fine at a lower acquisition price.
It will also be potentially safer operationally for our crews because of its twin engine design.
And why would they be good only until 2025 according to your country?
Our present F-18 have been around since 1982 so why a much shorter lifespan for the Super Hornet?
If Canada were to order the Super Hornet this year from Boeing, perhaps a couple of years would pass before our first delivery let us say 2015 and with a 25 to 30 year lifespan that would make them operational until 2040 or 2045.
Again Canada does not need nor can afford the latest and greatest toys. If Canada decides to spend that kind of money ($40B) on new aircrafts which I think in the present economic context around the world is insane then at least we could have a fleet of 140 F-18s which technically could cover a lot more airspace.
Our present F-18 have been around since 1982 so why a much shorter lifespan for the Super Hornet?
If Canada were to order the Super Hornet this year from Boeing, perhaps a couple of years would pass before our first delivery let us say 2015 and with a 25 to 30 year lifespan that would make them operational until 2040 or 2045.
Again Canada does not need nor can afford the latest and greatest toys. If Canada decides to spend that kind of money ($40B) on new aircrafts which I think in the present economic context around the world is insane then at least we could have a fleet of 140 F-18s which technically could cover a lot more airspace.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
you will find that the UK and australia's procurement price hasn't changed in any significant way since 2008.
Note that the Dutch factor in the cost of modifying and extending the life of their F-16s to cover the delay in delivery/FOC of the F-35.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan
I think all this shows is that you've no idea how US procurement works. I'm sure that GK121 and others from the US will be able to tell you, but IIRC it is US Federal Law that the US cannot sell* military equipment abroad for less than the cost of the same equipment to the US forces.
S41
*MDAP is obviously different, but I always had understood that the aid element reduced the price paid by the consumer, not the sticker price.
well seeing our price and canada hasn't changed, what price were they using? hopefully not what the usa low bid to get the contract was, no one with any sense uses that, it's just the way usa procurement works.
S41
*MDAP is obviously different, but I always had understood that the aid element reduced the price paid by the consumer, not the sticker price.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
LM under bid boeing to get the f-35 contract and the first bid to get the contract is always wrong.
JSFfan,
I know this is a rumour site and that we all have the cloak of anonymity but you must realise that you are arguing with some very F-35 savvy people who have, or continue to, work inside the programme. Initially you came across as naive, but you have readily embraced arrogance and appear to be drifting towards delusional.
Check yourself and think a little more before arguing against the great and the good who post on here as a welcome relief from the day-to-day. As it is you are arguing against a number of national governments and their respective judicial oversight by your attempts to claim that F-35 costs have not accelerated to the point that attraction national leader to national leader intervention. Indeed, the very fabric of NATO declared forces is being openly debated given the massive cuts in F-35 numbers to offset the interstellar price.
Read the Dutch analysis first as what was forecast has come to pass. The Dutch have not cut their F-35 budget (far from it) yet will only field a tiny F-35 force (if at all). This is a very real problem for a number of western nations (and please note I did not say air forces, but nations) so post with a little more care.
I know this is a rumour site and that we all have the cloak of anonymity but you must realise that you are arguing with some very F-35 savvy people who have, or continue to, work inside the programme. Initially you came across as naive, but you have readily embraced arrogance and appear to be drifting towards delusional.
Check yourself and think a little more before arguing against the great and the good who post on here as a welcome relief from the day-to-day. As it is you are arguing against a number of national governments and their respective judicial oversight by your attempts to claim that F-35 costs have not accelerated to the point that attraction national leader to national leader intervention. Indeed, the very fabric of NATO declared forces is being openly debated given the massive cuts in F-35 numbers to offset the interstellar price.
Read the Dutch analysis first as what was forecast has come to pass. The Dutch have not cut their F-35 budget (far from it) yet will only field a tiny F-35 force (if at all). This is a very real problem for a number of western nations (and please note I did not say air forces, but nations) so post with a little more care.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you mean like the low bid boeing tanker bid, that didn't even last a month before it was said to be more?
@ Just This Once...I did read the dutch link
1.1.1 General
"In June 2012, the Ministry of Defence estimated the costs of purchasing
the JSF at EUR 7.478 billion, on the basis of 85 aircraft, and the operating
costs over thirty years at EUR 13.567 billion (2011 prices, planned dollar
rate USD 1 = EUR 0.75). The Rutte-Verhagen government appropriated
EUR 4.5 billion for the replacement of the F-16."
the current rate is .88 euro to the dollar and I said "your dutch link has at 2012, 85 f-35 at $113m usd for procurement, I don't think that is counted the same as australia or canada as we have about $130m for procurement"
@ Just This Once...I did read the dutch link
1.1.1 General
"In June 2012, the Ministry of Defence estimated the costs of purchasing
the JSF at EUR 7.478 billion, on the basis of 85 aircraft, and the operating
costs over thirty years at EUR 13.567 billion (2011 prices, planned dollar
rate USD 1 = EUR 0.75). The Rutte-Verhagen government appropriated
EUR 4.5 billion for the replacement of the F-16."
the current rate is .88 euro to the dollar and I said "your dutch link has at 2012, 85 f-35 at $113m usd for procurement, I don't think that is counted the same as australia or canada as we have about $130m for procurement"
Last edited by JSFfan; 8th Dec 2012 at 07:53.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
which was low bid and wrong, boeing is eating that for now, will make it up on the future buys and i don't think it was a fixed price bid, perhaps you should check again...there is a limited usg liability in the over runs which boeing said it would exceed a month later
May I suggest that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Checked. Questions?
On February 24, 2011, The Boeing Company was awarded the KC-46 contract. The Fixed Price Incentive (Target Firm) contract was awarded for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) program phase, with Firm- Fixed-Price contract options for Low Rate Initial Production Lots 1 and 2, and Not-to-Exceed contract options with Economic Price Adjustment for Full Rate Production Lots 3 through 13.
On February 24, 2011, The Boeing Company was awarded the KC-46 contract. The Fixed Price Incentive (Target Firm) contract was awarded for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) program phase, with Firm- Fixed-Price contract options for Low Rate Initial Production Lots 1 and 2, and Not-to-Exceed contract options with Economic Price Adjustment for Full Rate Production Lots 3 through 13.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point about how much they cost could always be viewed as 'is it worth it?'
For the F-35's capabilities, is the expense worth it compared to a legacy jet? This depends on what the politicians/strategists etc envisage your country's military doing, and against whom, in a certain timeframe.
Then the next question is, for the Nation, is it worth the national expenditure? For the UK, with it's industrial share of building all the future F-35s, the answer is probably yes as the income and jobs generated covers the cost of the aircraft (according to some figures). This would not happen if we had bought off-the-shelf F-18s, Rafales etc but would have had a bearing on marinised Typhoon or Sea Gripen to a greater or lesser extent.
For the partner nations such as Australia and Canada there is some maths to do to figure out the overall cost to the economy of being in or out. The UK paid a lot of money upfront to be the only other Tier 1 partner but got a lot back for that National investment.
The squabbling about the actual unit cost is pointless. Early jets will be expensive, later jets less so. I am sure that long after the F-35 is combat proven the arguments will rage on about is it actualy worth all the money spent. For instance, was Typhoon worth all the time and money spent on it for the capability it delivered during the Libya ops, versus buying Rafale? It depends very much who you talk to, but what it has done is provide a lot of jobs in the UK that will continue as foreign sales are pushed.
There is a much bigger picture out there than just "$xxxM only buys you 1 jet" tabloid headline figures.
For the F-35's capabilities, is the expense worth it compared to a legacy jet? This depends on what the politicians/strategists etc envisage your country's military doing, and against whom, in a certain timeframe.
Then the next question is, for the Nation, is it worth the national expenditure? For the UK, with it's industrial share of building all the future F-35s, the answer is probably yes as the income and jobs generated covers the cost of the aircraft (according to some figures). This would not happen if we had bought off-the-shelf F-18s, Rafales etc but would have had a bearing on marinised Typhoon or Sea Gripen to a greater or lesser extent.
For the partner nations such as Australia and Canada there is some maths to do to figure out the overall cost to the economy of being in or out. The UK paid a lot of money upfront to be the only other Tier 1 partner but got a lot back for that National investment.
The squabbling about the actual unit cost is pointless. Early jets will be expensive, later jets less so. I am sure that long after the F-35 is combat proven the arguments will rage on about is it actualy worth all the money spent. For instance, was Typhoon worth all the time and money spent on it for the capability it delivered during the Libya ops, versus buying Rafale? It depends very much who you talk to, but what it has done is provide a lot of jobs in the UK that will continue as foreign sales are pushed.
There is a much bigger picture out there than just "$xxxM only buys you 1 jet" tabloid headline figures.
In reply to WhiteOvies...
Some of your points are valid depending on the country.
In Canada's case we will not get the fallouts of the project like the UK and I doubt very much the "unit cost" will go down for Canada's purchase.
We are looking most likely at paying between $125M to $165M per unit if we believe the latest numbers which are provided by various US government agencies.
Also I believe and most Canadians believe we should play a secondary role when it comes to world affairs by our military. I for one, do not want Canada to take an "offensive" role (like many other countries) but rather a "peace maker" role meaning once a conflict is stable we go in under the "UN banner".
As such and knowing that Canada is not about to be attacked, an offensive style weapons platform like the F-35 is not required.
However an aircraft like the F-18 or some of its competitors, perhaps the newer generation F-15 would suffice in patrolling our skies with a pretty good punch none the less that would deter an enemy.
Finally it comes down to the bottom line... Money! We simply can't afford that platform!
Some of your points are valid depending on the country.
In Canada's case we will not get the fallouts of the project like the UK and I doubt very much the "unit cost" will go down for Canada's purchase.
We are looking most likely at paying between $125M to $165M per unit if we believe the latest numbers which are provided by various US government agencies.
Also I believe and most Canadians believe we should play a secondary role when it comes to world affairs by our military. I for one, do not want Canada to take an "offensive" role (like many other countries) but rather a "peace maker" role meaning once a conflict is stable we go in under the "UN banner".
As such and knowing that Canada is not about to be attacked, an offensive style weapons platform like the F-35 is not required.
However an aircraft like the F-18 or some of its competitors, perhaps the newer generation F-15 would suffice in patrolling our skies with a pretty good punch none the less that would deter an enemy.
Finally it comes down to the bottom line... Money! We simply can't afford that platform!
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 8th Dec 2012 at 18:18.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJA4 - So the answer in your opinion would be - no, it's not worth it. Can Canada make do with what it has then? Why replace your Hornet fleet at all? Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry? Going in under a UN banner doesn't always make a difference to the bad guys, as a Sea Harrier and several others found out over the former Yugoslavia.
Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?
Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?
WO - I don't think many people would object if anyone or everyone selected JSF after a competition in which all bidders were subject to the same rules, the competitors were scored on how well they performed against realistic threats in a typical basket of missions, and everyone took their best shot on price, operating cost and industrial participation.
What worries me and others is that the JSF program (backed by USG) has been trying to nail down commitments and orders from operators worldwide despite not having a firm price or an IOC date, and having yet to demonstrate most of its lofty claims of capability.
If it turns out to be unaffordable (like the last fighter from its stable) or its capabilities, overall, are not as war-winning as the PowerPoints would have it, we'll have some expensive catching-up to do.
What worries me and others is that the JSF program (backed by USG) has been trying to nail down commitments and orders from operators worldwide despite not having a firm price or an IOC date, and having yet to demonstrate most of its lofty claims of capability.
If it turns out to be unaffordable (like the last fighter from its stable) or its capabilities, overall, are not as war-winning as the PowerPoints would have it, we'll have some expensive catching-up to do.
Last edited by LowObservable; 8th Dec 2012 at 19:23.
in reply to WhiteOveries...
"JJA4 - So the answer in your opinion would be - no, it's not worth it."
I don't pretend to know all the answers but IMHO at this time Canada does not need a F35 type aircraft nor can it afford it.
I'd love to own a Porsche 911 GT3RS V2 for my track use but I simply can't afford to buy one so I make do with my Audi a4. :-)
"Can Canada make do with what it has then? Why replace your Hornet fleet at all?"
Our F-18s are now all approaching 30 years in service with only 79 of the original 138 still in operation. I guess we could maintain them as to get even more life out of them but it would remain an older platform which would be less capable than the newer versions.
"Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry?"
Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.
"Going in under a UN banner doesn't always make a difference to the bad guys, as a Sea Harrier and several others found out over the former Yugoslavia."
True... Any time one plays the role of a policeman, one gets a chance at getting in harms way. That's part of the risk in those kinds of jobs.
"Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?"
The current government never had an open and fair bid to decide which aircraft would replace our old F-18s and that's the problem. It was fixed from the get "go" so that only the F-35 would fit the criteria!
Now that the sh!t as hit the fan the government is back tracking and it is said that they are opening up to have a complete review of the whole purchase for the replacement. We just hope this time around the process if open and fair with "real" numbers so that the right aircraft is selected.
Also and I'm repeating myself here again but in 1980 when they were down to the last two contenders for the then new fighter, the F-18 won over its adversary the F-16 because one of the criterias was for a "two engine" aircraft because of the huge area, most of it inhospitable was deemed safer for its crews.
The question I pose now is why was that an important criteria then and now we are set on buying a single engine aircraft to patrol the same areas?
"JJA4 - So the answer in your opinion would be - no, it's not worth it."
I don't pretend to know all the answers but IMHO at this time Canada does not need a F35 type aircraft nor can it afford it.
I'd love to own a Porsche 911 GT3RS V2 for my track use but I simply can't afford to buy one so I make do with my Audi a4. :-)
"Can Canada make do with what it has then? Why replace your Hornet fleet at all?"
Our F-18s are now all approaching 30 years in service with only 79 of the original 138 still in operation. I guess we could maintain them as to get even more life out of them but it would remain an older platform which would be less capable than the newer versions.
"Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry?"
Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.
"Going in under a UN banner doesn't always make a difference to the bad guys, as a Sea Harrier and several others found out over the former Yugoslavia."
True... Any time one plays the role of a policeman, one gets a chance at getting in harms way. That's part of the risk in those kinds of jobs.
"Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?"
The current government never had an open and fair bid to decide which aircraft would replace our old F-18s and that's the problem. It was fixed from the get "go" so that only the F-35 would fit the criteria!
Now that the sh!t as hit the fan the government is back tracking and it is said that they are opening up to have a complete review of the whole purchase for the replacement. We just hope this time around the process if open and fair with "real" numbers so that the right aircraft is selected.
Also and I'm repeating myself here again but in 1980 when they were down to the last two contenders for the then new fighter, the F-18 won over its adversary the F-16 because one of the criterias was for a "two engine" aircraft because of the huge area, most of it inhospitable was deemed safer for its crews.
The question I pose now is why was that an important criteria then and now we are set on buying a single engine aircraft to patrol the same areas?
JJA4
That risk is significantly reduced with an LO aircraft.
Engine technology and reliability has come a long way since the 50's. The predecessor to the Hornet for both RCAF and RAAF were that era of technology single engine jets (F-104 for RCAF, MirageIII for RAAF) and due to that both airforces lost plenty of jets and pilots. In the last 60 years the technology has moved on and the modern engines are far more reliable.
"Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry?"
Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.
Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.
The question I pose now is why was that an important criteria then and now we are set on buying a single engine aircraft to patrol the same areas?
Well I looked at the data for the Norwegian F-16s, and I think they've only lost a couple or three to engine failure in inhospitable areas, with the pilots all rescued.
That said, having shut down an engine on one's fighter in flight, it's really good to know it wasn't your only one.
That said, having shut down an engine on one's fighter in flight, it's really good to know it wasn't your only one.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JSFfan,
Yet again you are talking out of your arse, which 30 seconds research proves.
Accidents reports can be found here. The latest F116/F110 engine failure related accident report I can see at a quick glance is this one, dated June 2011. There are undoubtedly later, but it proves the point.
You have zero credibility and can only repeatedly put forward figures which also have zero credibility.
Yet again you are talking out of your arse, which 30 seconds research proves.
Accidents reports can be found here. The latest F116/F110 engine failure related accident report I can see at a quick glance is this one, dated June 2011. There are undoubtedly later, but it proves the point.
You have zero credibility and can only repeatedly put forward figures which also have zero credibility.