UUGGHH !!!......Canada is buying the Lockheed F-35

Damn fool politicians.

Just announced today that they are going to blow $9 billion on 65 aircraft and another $7 billion over the next 20 years for maintenance contracts to acquire a measly 65 Lockheed F-35 aircraft to replace our initial 138 CF-18 Hornets we ordered back in the early 1980's..................

For that amount of coin they could have bought 2 to 3 times as many of the SAAB Gripen, BAE Typhoon, Dassault Rafale , Sukhoi SU-35 or the newest MiG.........

Or 1/2 to 1/3 as many of any of the above, and saved us the rest of the money if all they wanted was 65 aircraft.

Personally, I don't think that the F-35 is a great air weapons platform to begin with, and at that price, it should not even be in the running. Once again, politics triumphs common sense in the matter of military acquisitions.

 

Why the hate for the F35? Jack of all trades...master of none.

The Su-35 is pretty freakin' awesome, though.

What I don't get, though, is the F22 has a $150mm unit cost while the F35 is $192mm. WTF? Why is the US getting F35s over F22s?

Edit: The $192mm is the fly away cost in 2010. Then $149mm in 2011. $140mm in 2012. $115mm in 2013. $98mm in 2014. $87mm in 2015. That's assuming they don't axe the program prior to 2015 to get all the savings for economies of scale like they did with the F22 being cut short. Idiot politicians.

Source is on pg 47: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf

 

I hope this isn't an anti-American thing.

Just kidding, of course. I'm sure the procurement people did their job competently. And, there are always intangibles that can't be measured. Will the Russian manufacturers be around another 10-15 years? Parts supply? Training? Are existing infrastructure (service facilities, etc.) applicable to new airframes? Lots of questions that I suspect we're not even privy to.

But, I also seem to recall reading or hearing that the F-22 was the undisputed AF's king of air superiority. While the F-35 isn't, perhaps, as technically advanced, the broad-based platform allows for multiple applications, right? So, there should be significant savings in the long run by standardizing, just as our own military has chosen. Of course, as pointed out, only IF the program survives.

Not an expert in these matters, so I defer to those who are, but it would seem that the F-35 is a good option, all things considered.

CW

 

Kds- If you bought three times as many aircraft it would make no difference because you would not have enough pilots to fly them and no inclination to train more. At 66,000 people in your entire armed force cadre, better you have a limited number of 5th generation aircraft than buy a larger number of obsolescent 4th generation aircraft that would quickly become obsolete. The aircraft you mentioned cannot survive in the modern and near future surface to air environment if you ever had to actually use them in combat.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Exactly my point........if we (the Canadian Air Force) find ourselves in another shooting war in Europe or the ME what is the worst we're going to go up against ? The newest MiG or Sukhoi ? Any of the aircraft I listed are their equal or better at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the F-35.

No, not at all.

There was no procurement process at all......and if there was, and if it was free of political interference, then you might have a point.

No competitive bids.

No fly off.

Nothing, zero, zip, zilch....nada.

Once again, as in the past numerous times, the politicians did it all.

Terry.......

Since the mid 70's when I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and until now we have had a cap of between 65-68K overall members from each of the 3 arms (land, air, water).

Back in the mid 70's and until the mid 80's we had 4 squadrons of CF-101 Voodoo's...........5 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters.......and 5 squadrons of CF-5 Freedom Fighters........then we went down to 8 squadrons of CF-18 Hornets in 1985 and now we will have 4 squadrons of F-35's........yet the same number of service people and still continue to receive more pilot applicants than we could manage even if we had 200+ jets to put them in. Training them is no problem......the OTU's at CFB Moose Jaw, CFB Cold Lake and CFB Goose Bay train NATO pilots in addition to our own, to take up the slack.

I disagree along with the British, French, Swedes and Russians, every foreign buyer country, Vietnam era MiG-17 pilots, et al, and while I know my place as a desk pilot, here's why......we're never going to fight against F-22 Raptors of F-35's.......so why do we need them ?

Give me 2 or 3 times as many of the other aircraft mentioned, or 65 for a fraction of the cost, or the newest 5th generation Soviet stuff for half the price or less, and we'll be the equal of, or better than, anyone we have to come up against while saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. Our CF-18's didn't get shot down in Kosovo or during Gulf War 1....because you guys took out the air defences and pretty much obliterated their fighter force before we went in. I expect if this occurs again it will be no different. We could conduct our continental airspace defence obligations easily with any of the other aircraft as well.

It was a totally political purchase motivated by nothing else whatsoever.........and I have to pay for it.

 

This is peculiar to me. That a legitimate, elected government can procure without some sort of review process. Regardless, I should think that Lockheed has built a good aircraft. Certainly worthy of consideration. US Defense Contractors have had a LONG tradition of building good product (with some duds, I'm sure), but they've sold billions (if not trillions) of dollars worth of it. And, they wouldn't get subsequent consideration if they weren't.

But, I do think it's odd that politicians control the procurement in CAN. That's just a recipe for disaster.

CW

 

The purchase was announced when our government is closed for holidays (how convenient)...........and this kind of stuff (no public accountability or due process) is common here in Canada when our governments buy the big ticket stuff. One of our Prime Ministers got nailed (once out of office) for taking cash bribes for swaying the national airline (Air Canada) to buy Airbus aircraft back in the 80's........we bought used supposedly modern attack submarines from the UK that turned out to be POS and one of them couldn't even make it across the Atlantic without a tow........cost us a fortune to retrofit them........got hosed on a C-130 Hercules contract.......the P-3 Orion contract........the CF-104 was a POS..........SAR helicopters........we lost our aerospace industry when we canceled the Avro Arrow due to political pressure and bought the already obsolete POS CF-101 Voodoo and Bomarc missile.........the only good things we ever bought competitively were the CF-5 Freedom Fighters, our current CF-18 Hornets, and our current Leopard main battle tanks.....but these deals were all done back in the 60's and 70's.

Notice the Lockheed connection BTW ???

We scream, *****, and moan and keep voting for the idiots. You won't find a single reference to a military procurement committee or single specialist being quoted as saying the F-35 is the best choice for Canada, anywhere, in any article you look at online.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/#more-5739

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/837235--not-so-fast-on-f-35-purchase

"Also disturbing is that there was no competitive bidding process."

"Leaked documents suggest that the U.S. government was keen to have Canada buy the F-35 to help offset its own enormous expenditures on development of the plane."

"But the Europeans are also our allies, and they have competitive planes. If they had been allowed to enter a bid, the government might have been able to bring down the price or increase the offsetting benefits for Canadian manufacturers in subcontracts."

"Multi-billion single-source buys have been a problem with numerous other Canadian procurements over the last 5-7 years, following the 20+ year fiasco of its competitive Maritime Helicopter Program competition. "

"Canada’s Conservative Party government declares that it will buy the F-35A, without a competitive process."

"That budget has not been confirmed by an actual contract, however, something that reportedly led to unpleasant surprises when Canada bought C-130Js from Lockheed Martin. "

"“According to secret cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail, officials are well aware that any move to open up the process to a competition could push the manufacturers of rival jets, such as the Boeing Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, to lower their prices. In addition, the government is expecting a “negative reaction” to the fact that the contract is set to be awarded without a competition…."

"$168 million (about 1 per cent of the final price tag) had already been invested in the development of the F-35, under a memorandum of understanding signed by the previous Liberal government."

 

Yes, I agree that it is disturbing. OTOH, perhaps the politicians are saving money by "piggy-backing" on the work our own Defense Department procurement people have done. That may not be the best, or even right, thing for CAN, but I'd be curious how the politicians justify it.

CW

 

Doesn't matter......they can save my money by purchasing other aircraft that are just as effective and 1/2 to 1/3 as cheap, regardless of the R&D or economies of scale (and already factored into our price) that the US has done. See my reply to Taz about that..........

 

I re-read your post to Taz, and I don't think it answers the question of how your politicians justify NOT having a procurement process and how they justify a multi-billion dollar acquisition. Essentially, you said, "it's political." Which may be correct. But, do I interpret that to mean it's a scratch my back thing? Or should I interpret that as something else? In many ways, it's good business for both of our countries. But, I certainly think products need to succeed or fail on the merits, and healthy competition promotes that. What factors one considers when making those decisions and how to measure or quantify them, however, is where the difference may come in.

CW

 

Yes.........it is a scratch my back thing IMHO for the US and for one other reason.......and sorry I didn't mention this tidbit earlier simply because I forgot, the vast majority of our remaining aerospace industry is headquartered in the economically starving province of Quebec.

Now, for someone who may not be familiar with our internal politics you may say "so what" and rightfully so, therefore in the simplest terms I shall try to explain. Imagine if one single US state held the national political balance of power in their separatist and very activist voting block, all the while acting like a grade school bully, pissing off the rest of the country, and suckling on the taxpayers wallets of people who would be content to let them rot in hell.

With any of the other aircraft choices out there, an equivalent % wise cut of the maintenance and manufacturing process delivered in kickback contracts and economic benefits could have been negotiated and given to the aerospace industry.......regardless of where they were headquartered. And the taxpayer would have saved billions, a benefit in equivalent % terms would have been realized, and we'd be in the same military position in terms of capability. However, $$ wise.......the larger the benefit that can be speculated upon, and rewarded in the media (regardless of the % relative to the contracted cost of the aircraft), the better ones chances are getting votes.

So, by overpaying waaaaay too much for a negligible military benefit with no due process of any kind, the current minority government soon to be facing an election, needs to attempt to get as many votes from this block as possible. Ergo, the bigger the perceived "stated but usually never realized" economic kickback given to their province, the better their chances are of getting re-elected in a more powerful position than they currently are.

They cannot justify it, nor explain it.....so, I wrote and mailed a letter to my member of parliament chastising him for this deal on numerous counts, militarily and politically, told him he was "fired" and that I would never vote for any current Canadian politician ever again. Let's see what he says. I will post the form letter reply here.......

 

Sounds like CA.

CW

 

Kds- Desert Storm will be 20 years ago in January and the surface to air threat is nowhere near what it was two decades ago. You either keep up, die, or do not play. Plus the Iraquis did not turn on a radar after day three of Desert Storm. I know, I flew in Desert Storm.

Your CF-18s were state of the art in the 1980s, when I actually flew in one in Germany duriing a NATO Tac Eval, but none of the other aircraft you mentioned offer any real improvements over the CF-18 except possibly serviceability. All, including the CF-18, are 4th generation, aluminum air-frame, mach 2, 7.5-9 g aircraft with no low observables technology. We fly the F/A-18E/F in the US Navy and Marines because it is an interim aircraft until the F-35 comes on line.

No, you will not face F-35s and F-22s, but the Russians have a 5th generation aircraft in development and it will be exported. Plus even if you do not face a 5th generation aircraft, you will face S200 and S300 SAMs plus the SA-XX tactical SAMs and those are tough nuts to crack for any force, including the USAF and USN/MC. If you want to send your guys into combat with substandard equipment so they can play only support roles in low threat areas while the US does the hard work, ok. Apparently your government does not feel that way.

Grumping about having to pay for this is nothing short of ridiculous. Last time I looked, Canada was 52nd in the world in spending as a % of GDP on defense and 59th in number of active duty troops, so I have a bit of a problem feeling even the most miniscule amount of pity for your tax burden. You will not even feel it and it will cost you, personally, virtually nothing. Crunch the numbers yourself and see what your personal defense tax burden is as a percentage of taxes paid. Would be happy to compare numbers.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Terry.....

I think that with a mere 65 aircraft (48 of which will be combat assigned, the rest will be for the OTU and spares) they have no plans of participating in any expeditionary excursions outside of our borders anymore.

And if they did, you still haven't explained how the Germans, British, French, Russians, Swedes, et al, with their new aircraft, latest avionics suites and ECM capabilities would fare with those aircraft. Past history shows us that they all build some damn good stuff........well proven in combat and peaceful flight.......no reason that should have changed suddenly, as their industrial espionage agents are hard at work in the US right now.....heh.

I don't want to send our guys into combat in substandard stuff and I am in favor of replacing the CF-18's.......but not with something that costs 2-3 times as much as anything else out there that is just as good (IMHO) and as we didn't try to even find out if it was or not, yes, I will complain about paying for it.

I've got a problem with $10,000 toilet seats and $2,000 screwdrivers too.

 

Kds- If you do not plan to participate in expeditionary flights, you would be better off with no fighters and some sort of long range aircraft with a big radar and air-to-air missiles to fulfill your NORAD obligations. Apparently that does not match your government's intentions, however.

Let me see if I can explain how some of those aircraft would fare. The UK sent 24 Tornados to Desert Storm with the latest avionics suite and ECM capability in 1991. They lost six of them. Similar losses could be expected from any non-stealthy aircraft in next generation warfare against current SAMs. Everybody in the UK kept telling us how superior the Tornado was to the F-111F. We took 64 to the war and did not lose one in combat. The Iraquis laid down their radars after Day 4 because they were afraid of ARMs. Will not happen with the current range of SAMs. Radars are way more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago and much more difficult to target with ARMs.

No toilet seats on an F-35 and the entire aircraft is built to be maintained with a very small tool kit, which I am sure does include a screwdriver, but nowhere near $2000. You can change out an engine in 30 minutes. There are advantages to having the latest and best and it is not just about stealth. None of the aircraft you mention have a JTIDS-like sensor fusion capability or anything anywhere near as capable.

Canada has committed to a $9B acquisition program and production offsets to Canada are estimated by your government at $12B. Not too bad a deal and your upfront investment to date has only been ~$170M. Canada began participating in the JSF program as a partner in 1997, so this should come as no great surprise.

Let me know if you would like a tutorial on an IADS and I will explain how stealth benefits survivability in depth.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

**** for nine billion they could have bought about 30,000 brand new Cessnas. No way 65 F35's could take on 30,000 Cessnas. Just stick a guy with a 50 cal in the passenger seat of each one. That would be more than enough to protect Canada.

 

How about 50,000 or so of these? It's called the "Armed Pitts".
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There is something to be said for the effectiveness of overwhelming numbers. It certainly worked for those South Americans when they visited Tony Montana at his mansion...
CH

 

We went through the argument of numbers vs quality in the USAF in the late 70s, early 80s. The cheap AF lost every war in every simulation we tried. They were swatted like flies. One of the reasons we never bought large numbers of F-5s and no F-20s. Buying fighters to fight the Battle of Britain in modern times is a waste of money. We did the same kinds of studies in the late 90s of 5th generation fighters vs updated 4th generation fighters. Same result. The 4th generation fighters died in droves.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Every encounter that I know of between F-15s and F-22s have been entirely one-sided: the Raptors do as they please. IMO, we are buying too many F-35s and not enough F-22s. The F-35s (and ALL other battlefield assets) cannot do their job adequately without the air dominance that the F-22s can provide.

 

F22 is a brialliant aircraft, not sure why they are buying the 35.

 

As I understood it, the F22 is designed singularly for air superiority. F35 has broader applications, capabilities and weapons packages (VTOL, ground troop support, etc.).

I imagine the mission demands would dictate the choice. But, again, I defer.

CW

 

Canadian Government Involvement

Canada has been an active participant in the JSF program since 1997, when it joined the Concept Demonstration Phase with an investment of $10 million USD.

In 2002, Canada invested an additional $150 million USD to join the System Development and Demonstration Phase. That investment granted the Department of National Defence access to a wide variety of JSF program technologies and data, new management and engineering approaches. Just as importantly it increased access for Canadian Industry to contracts with JSF.

The Department of National Defence has also received authority to join the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Memorandum of Understanding from 2006 – 2012.

In May 2008, the Canadian Government unveiled the Canada First Defence Strategy. It clearly lays out the government’s intention to replace the current fleet of CF-18 aircraft with a Next Generation Fighter Capability.

Currently there are 50 major Canadian Corporations who have won contracts in the design, construction, and maintenance of the F-35 program.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Rob- With the offsets Canada is getting, I believe the F-35 is a good deal for Canada. It will provide a state of the art capability for at least a couple of decades, probably longer with upgrades.

What most people do not realize is that the F-35 can also greatly expand its weapon carriage capability once it has dealt with the radar threats in stealth configuration. After the threat has decreased, the F-35 can carry external fuel tanks and a larger array of weapons that cannot fit into the Mk 83 sized internal weapons stations. It will be a very flexible aircraft and its single engine congifuration will save on maintenance man hours per sortie or flight hour.

We needed more F-22s, but are unlikely to get them. It seems to have been a target of a witch hunt since its inception. From 700+ to 200- really drove up the price and costs of running the aircraft.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I can't speak to the political side of your posting but I can tell you that the figures you posted regardless of their source are not correct. I read the pdf.

I've seen physical F-22 reciepts (dd250)for $124M and less, and the more we make the cheaper they are. As for the F-35, it is nearly a third of the cost of an F-22 so don't believe everything you read as an estimate" and get boiled over for no reason. Think about this.

If they cancelled the F-22 program (my job) due to it's cost then why on earth would Congress, the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense, et al, push and approve funds for the F-35 program if it cost more to manufacture than the 22? They wouldn't and didn't, and can't.

I am only trying to shed a little light that is unclassified but true. I'm not trying to evoke an argument on whose info is better but it chaps my hide to see people in print (in particular the media) speculate on the realized and actual costs of things and get the numbers so blatantly wrong and usually inflated for their own agenda's support. This action forms "public opinion" and erroneously misleads the public so that they'll support shutting an expensive program down which in part is responsible for the F-22 program coming to an end.

I just wish they'd spend the time to search for the actual truth and print that and let the chips fall where they may. It is just that sort of innacurate reporting by the mainstream media that forms opinions like yours, which I respect by the way, and then you and millions of others believe those rediculous numbers and get wrapped around the axle. Heck, I would too if I didn't have better information than what the media was slinging for everyone to gobble up.

We were supposed to build over 700 Raptors but didn't even get to build 200. The initial acquisition request numbers on these defense programs are just like anything else, a place to start and are almost always way more than they ever hope to get. As someone else mentioned, there are a LOT of factors that are considered that we the public don't get to see due to their classified status, however, some of it is publicly available by law, at least in this country.

There are a lot of factors that determine the final cost of anything. The manufacturing processes, politics, vendor support and reliability, training, qualified workforce and on and on. I swear the "leaner" a company tries to be, the behinder they get sometimes. For instance; used to be a company had their own warehouses, machine shops and the like. They made their own parts and stored them for use as needed right there on the plant. Nowdays, everything is made somewhere else and the parent company making whatever widget it is, has no control over that aspect of it and the parts or assemblies are ordered "just in time".

The problem with that system is that those parts don't always get there "in time" and it holds the whole process stream up like mashing that big red button to stop the proverbial assembly line. Say that part gets there and it fails recieving inspection... Any holdup or re-direction in a manufacturing environment because of that, costs money that is hard to get back if not impossible. I have gone on too long, sorry about that...