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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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...