F-35 issues - Page 6 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Not the Digital Home > News, Weather, and Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2011-04-11, 04:30 PM   #76
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gworg
Yet another white paper seems like a waste.
As compared to the waste so abundant in the F-35 deal it is a sensible and parliamentary way to proceed. The Canada First Defence Strategy is the soil in which the F-35 problem sprung up.
stampeder is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2011-04-17, 01:59 PM   #77
gworg
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 484
Default

this just keeps getting better and better

Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included
gworg is offline  
Old 2011-04-17, 02:17 PM   #78
JamesK
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 6,190
Default

^^^^
Ummm... That's long been standard practice with aircraft. The purchaser choses the airframe and then the engines. You'll often see the same model plane flying with engines from different manufacturers. The same happens with large trucks, where you buy the basic chassis from one company, the engine from another and also the same with the transmission, differential, cab, body, etc. What we need is the all up price, which the Conservatives seem to not want to release.
__________________
But what is the speed of dark?
JamesK is online now  
Old 2011-04-17, 02:57 PM   #79
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,972
Default

The true unit cost of these F-35s is shaping up to be a walloping shock for taxpayers. This is a very bad deal for Canada.

Quote:
The F-35's main engine is the Pratt & Whitney F135. The General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 is being developed as an alternative engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...5_Lightning_II

I'm not sure which of those the US would specify, but any F-35s going to the RAF will almost certainly have the Rolls-Royce engines due to political considerations (home market). Canada's current CF-18 fighter uses GE engines.
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-04-17, 05:43 PM   #80
dirtroad
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 940
Default The New $115 Million F-35 Stealth..... Glider!

This is beginning to look more and more like the "Submarine Fiasco", which is is still making news as they haven't been armed yet . From April 10th see http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...edoes-for-subs
At least we didn't buy the retired fleet of space shuttles, as they are gliders too.

From what I can determine the "in the air" or "Fly Away" cost of an up to date Super Hornet, is now $55 Million, so while I believe we should have more than one type of Fighter Jet in our fleet, I am beginning to believe the F-35 is not the way to go, but we should definitely be ordering more of the F18's.
dirtroad is offline  
Old 2011-04-18, 07:40 PM   #81
gworg
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 484
Default clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by gworg View Post
this just keeps getting better and better

Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist
Quote:
“The $9 billion overall acquisition cost includes 65 aircraft with engines installed,” the defence department said in a statement.
gworg is offline  
Old 2011-04-19, 02:16 AM   #82
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,972
Default

Okay so now that they've clarified that the jet fighters would be paid for with engines, we're back to the fact that the Canadian government can never get a better deal on those F-35s than the U.S. military can due to American export laws. The numbers touted by the Conservatives and the Defence Department are unrealistically low versus the cost estimates from the U.S. government.
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-04-27, 03:22 PM   #83
Udowish
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Calgary: Samsung UND556300 LED Tv, DCT 3400, Gateway + 2 portals,shaw PVR expander; Toshiba 42ZV655
Posts: 134
Default

look, jets are expensive! lets look at a nation that most resembles ours for an example:

Australia bought 24 super hornets for $3B AU which isn't much of deal. In facts that $125M per unit, which is more than the F-35 buy about $25M per unit.

So, sure throw in dollar cost averaging and lets say we get a 'deal' the cost wouldn't be much less. In fact, the training and 10 year support contract for those 24 super hornets for the Australians is $6.0B AU for...24 jets!

When you look at it like that our deal is far better, and that $16B isn't just the price of the jets, that is their combined total maintenance over their lifetime. And, BTW our current fleet of hornets cost more than that in inflation adjusted dollars!

I do say tho, I want to see more than 65 units, but even if we went to the super hornet the number would not go past 100 for the same price.

I point this out because the super hornet is a gen4 AC with the JSF is a gen5. It should be about getting the best kit you can when you need to buy new stuff. 30 yrs ago we pumped out $3.4B for current fleet of hornets, and that DID NOT include any lifetime service agreements.

And, do we want to deal with a similar fiasco with jets as we did with the marine helicopter project? That derailed the acquisition of a replacement for almost 2 decades!
Udowish is offline  
Old 2011-04-27, 04:45 PM   #84
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,972
Default

Before I reply, have you read the previous posts in this thread? I don't want to have to repeat myself or rehash points made well by others.
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-04-28, 09:33 AM   #85
travisc
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Uxbridge, ON
Posts: 3,600
Default

I'm gonna go with no? The Super Hornets are far less expensive. I would guess the $125m price is jets plus maintenance... Didn't I just read that the current jet + maintenance for the F-35 is $375m over 30 years?
travisc is offline  
Old 2011-04-28, 11:55 AM   #86
audacity
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 2,877
Default

My problem with the F-35 purchase has very little to do with the particulars of the F-35 deal itself. My issue is that the future for military aircraft is clearly unmanned drone-style aircraft.

Human pilots are often described as the most delicate part of a fighter jet (e.g. they pass out at > 9 Gs) , and the Americans have been having much success with their early-generation unmanned drones. I believe this trend will continue and ten years from now buying human-piloted fighter jets will be like buying a new calendar in September of that year.
audacity is offline  
Old 2011-04-28, 02:10 PM   #87
Udowish
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Calgary: Samsung UND556300 LED Tv, DCT 3400, Gateway + 2 portals,shaw PVR expander; Toshiba 42ZV655
Posts: 134
Default

true the pilot physically is the weakest link however; they have been saying the days of manned AC are over since the 50's. That's why they cancelled the Arrow program in 1959. Granted technology is much closer to being at the point were a complete un-manned force is more likely but I still don't think we are there yet.
Udowish is offline  
Old 2011-04-28, 03:16 PM   #88
audacity
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 2,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udowish View Post
Granted technology is much closer to being at the point were a complete un-manned force is more likely but I still don't think we are there yet.
The key difference between the 1950's and now is that the US military is heavily using unmanned drones today, and has been for a number of years now. The question isn't are we there today. The question is will we be there during the projected lifetime of the F-35s, and that answer is almost certainly yes.
audacity is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 07:06 AM   #89
cr9527
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
Okay so now that they've clarified that the jet fighters would be paid for with engines, we're back to the fact that the Canadian government can never get a better deal on those F-35s than the U.S. military can due to American export laws. The numbers touted by the Conservatives and the Defence Department are unrealistically low versus the cost estimates from the U.S. government.
Just registered to the forum so I can may be able to shed some light into this.
--------------

The claim that $75 million is significantly or "Unreasonably" lower than what Americans are paying for them, is quite wrong.

Based on the USAF budget estimates of FY2012-2016, the Average Flyaway Cost for F-35A model is $90 Million

Now this may immediately ring some bells that, Hey! That's higher than $75 Million!

Well yeah, The Flyaway cost isn't just the cost per aircraft, it also includes non-recurring expenses that were spent previously on previous batches of aircraft including setting up the factory line.

A more accurate way to look at this, since we lack the Recurring flyaway cost of F-35A in 2016, We can look at the Procurement costs.
This is placed at around $121 Million.
Now the Procurement costs includes Training, spares, tools, facilities, etc.

Basically it covers all that you need to get the IOC(Initial Operating Capability) and basically everything covered in the $9 Billion Harper government estimated.

$121 Million * 65 = $7.9 Billion

7.9 vs 9, Not so far is it?

This Of course doesn't cover the "20 year" cost estimate by the Harper government of $14.7 Billion.

But a good rule of thumb is the Life time operating cost of a fighter jet, including spares and maintenance, is typically double that of the procurement cost.

So, 7.9*2 = $15.8 Billion.
Now keep in mind this is the estimated life time cost, hopefully much longer than 20 Years. (USAF plans to operate F-35 beyond 2040)

So, the 20 Year cost will be < $15.8 Billion, Much closer to Harper government's estimate than PBO's crazy 30 Billion Estimate, Don't you think?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post
The key difference between the 1950's and now is that the US military is heavily using unmanned drones today, and has been for a number of years now. The question isn't are we there today. The question is will we be there during the projected lifetime of the F-35s, and that answer is almost certainly yes.
We are not there today. Modern day fighter jets are at the point where we need to make a decision to kill or not to kill during an intercept Long before visual confirmation.
We simply Cannot give the AI the permission to make that decision, not until we can accurately determine the exact type of aircraft that is flying some hundred KM away.
See Iran Flight 655

Before you suggest it, relying on a human controller on the ground to make this decision is unreliable. Should any competent EW(Electronic Warfare) systems be used, ground controllers could easily lose communications with the drones.
See Gulf War, where many Cruise Missiles were jammed and failed to stay on course.

Will we be there by 2030? 2040?
Perhaps, but keep in mind, if we won't upgrade our Hornets today, or say chose a cheaper alternative such as Super Hornet, or a Eurocanard, by 2030-2040, we would be a generation behind most of our potential adversaries.

Last edited by cr9527; 2011-05-09 at 07:17 AM. Reason: grammar
cr9527 is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 07:50 AM   #90
cr9527
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 63
Default

*Sorry for double posting*

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
the Hornet was designed by Northrop as a land-based multi-task (including air superiority) fighter, but that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) sub-licensed the design from Northrop to upgrade it for U.S. Navy carrier operations. Canada selected the latter version despite not requiring the tail hook gear (for obvious reasons) and may actually have benefited from the stouter landing gear over the long run regarding airframe durability.As has been convincingly clarified earlier in this thread, the F-18 was indeed meant to replace the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, and real world experience over the decades shows that your statement is incorrect and ill-informed.

I could go on refuting your claims by why should I when this thread is full of great reading on those subjects already?
Sorry Admin, but you are dead wrong on both of these statements.

Firstly, the Northrop plane you described was the YF-17. While similar to the hornet in appearance, it can turn circles around the hornet. This is because the F-18 had to go through some major structural overhauls to enable it to survive repeated carrier landings and take offs.

Secondly, The Super Hornet replaced the F-14, not the regular hornet. Differences are significant. The Super Hornet had far superior air to air capabilities over the regular hornet.

However, even with the much improved Super Hornet, the Tomcat still one ups it in air to air missions simply by sheer size. This means bigger radar, more avionics, bigger missiles.

Technology has narrowed the gap significantly, though one may ponder at what the Tom Cat would be like had it received the same upgrades.

Costs were the deciding factor for the replacement, not performance

Finally, the decision to purchase the F-18 as our interceptor is not for it's capability, but rather because it was the only fighter that met our requirements.
1. 2 engined, 2. Price.

F-16 had one engine, Mirages were dated, Tornados, F-15s, F-14s were too expensive. So, we got the F-18s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
I don't agree with the connection you've made. Defending against a stealth fighter does not require a stealth fighter. It requires the very best air defence detection gear on the ground, in the air, at sea, and in space. That's NORAD in a nutshell. A current Hornet under NORAD command and control does the job excellently, and is only being replaced due to its age and not obsolescence. That is simple proof that the F-35 is not necessary.
Um no. To defend against stealth fighters, the last thing you would want is a ground or sea based SAM systems.
Case 1: Interception of potentially hostile aircraft.
We cannot simply shoot down an aircraft without positive identification of both type and intent. SAM network will not accomplish this. We need birds in the air to establish visual identification outside of wartime. This requires birds in the air that can actually combat other stealth fighters. This brings me to

case 2: Ground or Sea based SAM systems are limited by the Horizon, should a hostile stealth aircraft travel below 1000 meters, even given a completely hill-less landscape, and somehow being unaffected by the target's stealth nature, our detection range is limited below 110km. Any lower, such as NOE flight paths of say 100 meters would limit it down to 35km. There is absolutely NO way of avoiding this with ground based systems. This leads to huge gaps in our air defenses, and thus leaves us vulnerable

case 3: Due to the very nature of ground based systems being not very mobile, easily fooled by decoys, and limited in quantity, this leaves the system very vulnerable to any competent foe that has the capability to perform SEAD/DEAD. We've seen this in Gulf War 1 and Kosovo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
The Chinese stealth fighter, whenever it begins service, will not be much of a risk to Canadian air space. China has no aircraft carriers, nor intercontinental air-to-air refueling capability, so in a conflict it would only be seen in Asian airspace.
Partially agree, While the Chinese J-20 won't present any threat to us, export stealth or semi-stealth aircraft could. This combined with Russian PakFA and their routine of flying bombers near our border, does warrant us to take countermeasures.
P.S. China does have air to air refueling capability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
So, given that the primary role of our existing Hornets is as an air defence interceptor, we require the best replacement aircraft for the money, purchased in a transparent, competitive bidding process. The proposed F-35 deal fails us in umpteen ways.
As stated before, to properly detect and intercept stealth fighters or bombers, one would need to use stealth fighters.
Either that or station a SAM battery or compatible networked radar every 4000km^2 along the border. Good luck with that!

Unless you suggest we team up with the Americans(Their f-35 or F-22) every time we patrol the arctic, we need a stealth fighter.

Last edited by cr9527; 2011-05-09 at 08:22 AM.
cr9527 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.