F-35 issues

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by nic78

Yes excellent idea. Buy 32 F35's and 68 F18 Super Horents. The Super Horents could be obtained at $50 million a piece, and are available tomorrow

The cost of the extra logistic line would negate any savings you'd think you'd get. This is why only major military powers operate a Hi-Lo mix.

also provides a different mix of jets for different types of roles/missions..

The F-35 can fill the Super Hornet's mission profile entirely.

They are also faster and have a greater range than the F35's

Only just. Not enough to make any tactical nor strategic differences.

Originally Posted by stampeder

the RAND Corporation has already estimated that the F-35's stealth technology will have been rendered obsolete before we ever get one of those planes (see earlier posts)

Read the RAND report again.
You do realize the Obsolescence of F-35's stealth technology was an assumption so they can analyze the what-if scenario that the F-35 loses the Stealth edge.

That is all that it was. An Assumption which they in no way contend will in fact be the case.

the recent crash landing of a stealth drone in Iran has delivered some of that technology right to such international interests as China and probably Russia too

1st thing, the RQ-170 does NOT prioritize stealth. Evident by its sensor package mounted on the OUTSIDE, on the BOTTOM of the aircraft.
see pic:



2nd thing, even if the Iranians, Chinese, or Russians have gotten hold of an F-35(for example), this in no way does it negate the benefits of the F-35's stealth technology. At best, it allows them to build an aircraft equally as stealthy as the F-35, and would make all non-stealth aircraft that much more obsolete. The stealth would still be a necessity.

as I've argued earlier, stealth is not particularly necessary in the first place for our needs

And you have failed to support your argument by not being able to defend your position that Stealth is not useful in air defense roles.

the F-35 under-performs the Super Hornet in almost every conventional way

In terms of aerodynamics, I can agree, however aerodynamics rarely come to play in the modern era of aerial combat.

any supposed economic benefits to Canada from shared production would be vastly outweighed by the total cost of the F-35 deal

I agree, but the cost estimates ARE around what Harper's goverment predicted.

Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Turkey and Australia will all be fighting with Canada for the same work so there are no guarantees of the quality, longevity, or even availability of such work

The program is structured in such a way that the individual subcontractors get assigned specific parts. These parts don't change due to tooling. No country above can produce their own full copy of the plane, so there is no worry about competition.

if cuts in purchases of the F-35 happen amongst those countries, it follows logically that the amount of such work will drop, making the work and the entire purchase less and less valuable to our economy

But by what quantity? That is the more important question. Yes some cuts have been made, yes price will increase, but by how much?

30-50 planes won't make much of a dent in the total 3,000 odd planes.

it is therefore logical, sensible,and fiscally conservative to avoid buying any F-35s. The rationale for a mixed fleet is just not there because the F-35 is a waste of time and money.

Buying any other plane other than the F-35 will result in the inability for our air force to defend our air space. This is a fact of today. There is no other plane that can withstand forseeable stealthfighters of potential enemies in the future.

[Nanuuk]

I am in favour of a mixed fleet as it allows us to maintain an airforce of 100 planes rather than 60-ish. I believe this is Australia's strategy as well.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

The F-35 can fill the Super Hornet's mission profile entirely.

Which would seem to be 100% false given that the plane isn't actually available, and won't won't be for years. If they ever actually put the things in production, perhaps it will be able to do this, sometime in the the 2020s ... but I don't see how you can claim it can presently do this.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Buying any other plane other than the F-35 will result in the inability for our air force to defend our air space.

By that weird logic, Canada's air force is therefore currently unable to defend our air space because we don't have the F-35 and won't for years to come. Since that is patently untrue, there is no logic to your conclusion. Also, as discussed earlier, the U.S.A. would never take kindly to Canada failing to meet it's NORAD obligations, which it can and does do with the Hornet and would be able to do with the Super Hornet. Buying the F-35 is a waste of time and money.

[travisc]

If we assume for a moment that the Harper government is intentionally under-estimating the cost of the F-35 program for political reasons, it follows that other governments might be doing the same thing. Pointing to cost estimates furnished by other governments really don't fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings.

Here's a fun article btw:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/08/t...-alternatives/

[stampeder]

About the authors of that article:

Originally Posted by travisc

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

Stewart Webb is a Research Associate with the Salt Spring Forum. They are the authors of “Canada’s F-35 Purchase is a Costly Mistake”, published today in the peer-reviewed Canadian Foreign Policy Journal.

I'll save one of our contributors the trouble and say (completely in jest, of course) that those gentlemen cannot possibly know how to budget for jet fighters and are 100% wrong about everything they said.

BTW if you are unsure of exactly what a "Canada Research Chair" is, look it up. A CRC isn't a piece of furniture; a CRC is a person who is one of the cream of the crop in Canadian academia who has been extensively recruited, vetted, and made privy to extended funding for leading-edge research at a Canadian university.

[travisc]

Really the article points to the larger issue going on here - this purchase isn't really about the F-35 in and of themselves, it's about the larger plan to tear down government. Since they have to spend so much money on building up the military, OAS has to be reduced. Thousands of jobs need to be eliminated, programs slashed, funding cut. The F-35 is a convenient way to spend a lot of money on things we don't need but happens to dovetail nicely with the ideology.

Look up Errol Mendes' article about the Revolution of the Night Watchman.

[stampeder]

I'm not treading in the ideological underpinnings of this government's spending patterns here as it merits a compete thread of its own, but I do see the F-35 deal as a complete boondoggle. As I've said, this government seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 despite a loud chorus of expert opinions on that new aircraft's unsuitability. This government is certainly not behaving sensibly about it nor in harmony with fiscal conservatism.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by Nanuuk

I am in favour of a mixed fleet as it allows us to maintain an airforce of 100 planes rather than 60-ish. I believe this is Australia's strategy as well.

No, the Super Hornets are a stop gap for the F-35s to replace their even older F-111

Originally Posted by nfitz

Which would seem to be 100% false given that the plane isn't actually available, and won't won't be for years. If they ever actually put the things in production, perhaps it will be able to do this, sometime in the the 2020s ... but I don't see how you can claim it can presently do this.

1st thing, unavailable has nothing to do with its mission profile, and secondly, the F-35 IS in production, just not at full rate as not all of the bugs have been ironed out.

How can I claim it can fill the Super Hornet's mission profile?
You mean besides the publicly available specifications? How about the Super Hornet is currently being used to temporarily fill the void the F-35's delays left? Or how about the program's requirements compared to that of the Super Hornets?

Originally Posted by stampeder

By that weird logic, Canada's air force is therefore currently unable to defend our air space because we don't have the F-35 and won't for years to come.

The 5th generation fighters of rival nations have yet to go beyond the initial prototype stage. We are okay for until they go into production estimated at around 2020.

Also, as discussed earlier, the U.S.A. would never take kindly to Canada failing to meet it's NORAD obligations, which it can and does do with the Hornet and would be able to do with the Super Hornet.

The Hornet is adequate in dealing with other 4th generation threats, namely the flankers and migs, similar to the Super Hornets or the Eurocanards.

Upgrading to them will be an utter waste of money due to the innate obsolescence of their design being in the same generation as the Hornets.

Originally Posted by travisc

If we assume for a moment that the Harper government is intentionally under-estimating the cost of the F-35 program for political reasons, it follows that other governments might be doing the same thing. Pointing to cost estimates furnished by other governments really don't fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings.

Governments are the only source of solid evidence we have on this subject matter. Fact is, none of the countries considering the F-35 have estimated the cost to be significantly, if at all, more than the Harper's estimates. None.

Here is another source, 2 days old.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/02/...ts-government/

Here, the more refined estimate is 37.5-40 Billion NOK for 50-52 aircraft. That's 7.153 Billion CAD, and 9.299 Billion CAD for 65, assuming the highest cost, and lowest aircraft(worst case).

This is overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the F-35's cost being near what Harper estimated. Do you have any shred of solid evidence pointing otherwise?

I'll save one of our contributors the trouble and say (completely in jest, of course) that those gentlemen cannot possibly know how to budget for jet fighters and are 100% wrong about everything they said.

BTW if you are unsure of exactly what a "Canada Research Chair" is, look it up. A CRC isn't a piece of furniture; a CRC is a person who is one of the cream of the crop in Canadian academia who has been extensively recruited, vetted, and made privy to extended funding for leading-edge research at a Canadian university.

Well, he made several crucial mistakes in that article.
1. He compared the cost of the Estimated cost from 2016-2020+ to the current LRIP cost.
2. He claims stealth only benefits in covert attacks, which is blatantly untrue as stealth is key to modern air supremacy.
3. He praises the Super Hornet and yet bashes the F-35's speed and range despite the two are equivalent in those regards.
4. He believes the maximum speed of a fighter aircraft is a useful statistic, especially in an air defense role.
5. He claims UK cut the numbers of F-35 as a result of the plane itself while not mentioning the fact that the UK is in serious financial **** right now and is cutting ALL programs across the board. From not purchasing guns in their Typhoons, and instead filling them with cement, to cutting aircraft carriers.
6. He criticizes the Stealth aspect of the F-35 sacrifices performances in speed and range, and yet he fails to mention how the Hornet, and indeed the Super Hornet being naval aircraft, goes great lengths to strengthen their airframe, as well as decreasing their angles of sweep which both massively decrease speed and range at high speeds.

I don't care which organization he is from, but the mistakes are very amateurish.

Really the article points to the larger issue going on here - this purchase isn't really about the F-35 in and of themselves, it's about the larger plan to tear down government. Since they have to spend so much money on building up the military, OAS has to be reduced. Thousands of jobs need to be eliminated, programs slashed, funding cut. The F-35 is a convenient way to spend a lot of money on things we don't need but happens to dovetail nicely with the ideology.

Look up Errol Mendes' article about the Revolution of the Night Watchman.

Do we need an air force? That is the question for you.

As I've said, this government seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 despite a loud chorus of expert opinions on that new aircraft's unsuitability.

Any expert that claims Stealth can ONLY be used for attack role should be dismissed on sight. Those are the only "experts" that call for the unsuitability.

F-22 for example, demonstrated its capabilities mainly due to stealth in routine exercises where inexperienced pilots easily overwhelmed superior numbers of experienced pilots in legacy fighters.

This has nothing to do with attacking an enemy territory, but to handle aerial threats, which affect air defense.

Stealth in fact is seen as so effective that the worlds navies are scrambling to modernize with stealth corvettes frigates and destroyers where stealth isn't there to evade enemy batteries, but to minimize detection from fighters and their missiles.

The Russians and Chinese are both rushing to put Stealth Interceptors into service.

But why would they? After all, they have the worlds most robust ground based air defense networks in the world. Far surpassing ANY SAM system in the west in both quantity and quality. Why would they spend billions in stealth fighters if all the "Experts" believe that stealth is useless in air defense role?

Hows this for suitability? Those on this forum and your expert are calling for the Super Hornet to replace the F-35 by quoting that F-35 is a bomb truck.

Do you have any clue as to what the Super Hornet is?
Not only does the Super Hornet inadequately replaced the Tomcat in order to save costs as an interceptor, it also replaced the A-6, a dedicated attack aircraft. It is a mediocre air dominance fighter for this generation, while having great attack capabilities. Its designed to fly efficiently at low speeds, carry a lot of ordinance, and having very short bursts of supersonic speed.

[stampeder]

Back to your tiresome, repetitive "I alone am the holder of the truth and I'm never mistaken" type of reply in the face of the opinions of acknowledged experts, let alone those of fellow members of this site.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

How can I claim it can fill the Super Hornet's mission profile?
You mean besides the publicly available specifications? How about the Super Hornet is currently being used to temporarily fill the void the F-35's delays left? Or how about the program's requirements compared to that of the Super Hornets?

It seems naive to think that we can choose between something that's flying and doing it's job, and something where the specs are still on paper, and haven't been achieved. Who says they'll ever achieve them for the price that our government has promised they will be paying?

Originally Posted by cr9527

Do we need an air force? That is the question for you.

Sure we need an air force. Transports, helicopters, etc.

Question is, do we need jet fighters. Many would say that we don't. Doesn't seem much point to them, compared to what else we could do. Imagine how much we could raise the minimum wage in this country instead, or increase welfare payments to those in need!

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by nfitz

do we need jet fighters

We absolutely do, given our treaty obligations to NORAD and to a much lesser degree NATO. As for rationale, the need to have human intercepts of "unfriendlies" in our air space is a fundamental cornerstone of the assertion of sovereignty in the world today. In New Zealand, it was argued that no threat from unfriendlies existed so the air force was stood down. In Canada, the situation is much more complex, so we have a fleet of Hornets that patrol our air space. Since those airframes are expected to arrive at their life expectancy in the coming years it is time to prepare for upgrading them, and it is at this point that we now face a sizeable and expensive aircraft purchase. Like you, my preferences for federal government spending are much more humane and socially conscious, but this is one of those situations in which we have to buy what gives the best performance for the buck. The F-35 is way too expensive and inappropriate for our needs.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by stampeder

We absolutely do, given our treaty obligations to NORAD and to a much lesser degree NATO.

Withdraw from them then. Though not all NATO members have fighters, so I don't see why we would be obligated to have them.

[stampeder]

We would break treaties at our economic peril. Paradoxically if we withdrew from NORAD we'd have an even greater need for protecting our own air space. Remember that U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker that navigated the Northwest Passage without our permission? The U.S. still holds to the belief that they have the right to do that. Extending their rationale to the air is their standard policy. The Russians lay claim to waters that also directly challenge our sovereignty claims too. So do the Danes. Are they our enemies? Not in a military sense, but they are certainly challengers. Does might make right? Unfortunately it does in cases like the high Arctic.

As I've mentioned, the issue is sovereignty and how best to protect it. The Super Hornet will fulfil our NORAD obligations excellently as we phase out the Hornet. The F-35 is way too expensive and unsuitable.

[stampeder]

One of the biggest concerns for the United States is the estimated life-time sustainment costs of the radar-evading jet. It's been estimated that servicing the American fleet of 2,243 aircraft could cost up to $1 trillion over 50 years.

New figures from the Pentagon suggest operational costs on Canada's fleet of 65 fighters could run in the range of US$14 billion, depending upon how long the country chooses to fly them.

The estimate bolsters a report last year by parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, which challenged the Harper government and the Defence Department's claim that it would cost in the neighbourhood of US$7 billion over 20 years to keep the jets aloft.

Page's assessment, released prior to the last election, was dismissed as inaccurate speculation.

But the U.S. Defence Department quietly noted earlier last week that the F-35 will cost about US$30,000 per hour to fly and maintain over the decades it's expected to be in service.

When those figures are calculated for the Royal Canadian Air Force, it works out to US$7.2 million per aircraft per year -- or US$468 million annually for the entire fleet.

http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=WinnipegHome

The Pentagon presumably knows how to budget for fighter jets, so here they are backing up the dire warnings of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who has been the object of derision in this thread by a commentator as being ill-informed. I'll take Kevin Page's word for it, thanks.