[andyt]

Nov. 23, 2010:
"If it was up to the Liberal/NDP coalition, they would cancel the F-35 program and put hundreds of Winnipeg aerospace jobs in jeopardy."
"These contracts are being negotiated and signed right now. Cancelling this deal and spending years dithering, as the Liberal/NDP coalition would have us do, would be devastating to the tens of thousands workers in Canada's aerospace industry and the hundreds based here in Winnipeg."
—Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Winnipeg

April 26, 2011:
"Many of the reports you're citing are comparing apples to oranges. Our experts have put out their detailed figures and everything we've seen is within those figures and their contingencies — the contingencies that have been allowed."
—Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Quebec, in response to reports the F-35s would cost more than initially thought


Nov. 8, 2011:
"We will purchase the F-35. We're on record. We're part of the crusade. We're not backing down."
—Associate Minister of National Defence Julian Fantino, Fort Worth, Texas


Oct. 18, 2011:
"There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States."
"All of the hypothetical discussions and quite negative discussions, quite frankly, about this program are really just clatter and noise. This program is going ahead."
—Minister of Defence Peter MacKay, Halifax


March 13, 2012:
"We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program."
—Associate Minister of National Defence Julian Fantino, Ottawa

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yep, I doubt you'll find too many(if any) RCAF pilots that would take a single over a dual powerplant

Not for nothing, but for most aircraft types, a twin-engine is meant for each engine to prodce 50% of the required thrust, not 100%. So losing an engine in a twin is only slightly better than losing one in a single. Either way, you're probably meeting the ground sooner than expected, the only question is how hard and how soon.

[HyperionTheEvil]

andyt andyt:

Weren't there a lot of experts on this forum assuring is that the cost wouldn't exceed 100 million per (don't remember the exact figure) We had some very strong opinions about how the F-35 was the only option and they pity the fool who believes otherwise.

Yes there were and at the time i pointed out that the F-35's were going to actually cost about 200 m a piece, of course all the rabid tory's out there thought i was making numbers up. Of course when you actually facts to the Tory's the immediately go into spin mode

[andyt]

Yep, I remember a military analyst was called a lefty anti-military type because he said the planes wouldn't possibly cost 75 mil. And if course I didn't know what I was talking about having posted this analyst. Par for the course. That analysts estimate was 150 mil - if only.

[andyt]

andyt andyt:

I find the debate incredibly boring. But this article caught my eye:

$1:

U.S. defence expert says jets will cost double DND and Tory estimates

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-defence-expert-says-jets-cost-double-dnd-20110405-071027-195.html

$1:

"Nobody on this earth is going to be buying F-35s in flyable condition at $75 million a copy. That's not in the cards," said Wheeler, who was invited to Ottawa by the left-leaning Rideau Institute think-tank...

He said the government's estimates refer to what is known as the unit recurring flyaway cost, or URF. He said the URF is not used in Washington because it doesn't include essential things needed to actually fly an aircraft — and that includes the engine.

Of course that will really lower the maintenance costs on those babies, so maybe it's a good idea to buy them without engines. We could just train the pilots to make zooooooooooooooom noises and pretend they're flying the aircraft. Certainly confuse he hell out of the enemy.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The Center for Defense Information is a well known liberal 'think tank' in the US, comparable to the Rideau Institute in Canada. It's staff are left wing anti military types.

I'd be very surprised if the CDI thought any weapons system on the planet was a good purchase.

Look at the sources before you post andy.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

andyt andyt:

I find the debate incredibly boring. But this article caught my eye:

$1:

U.S. defence expert says jets will cost double DND and Tory estimates

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-defence-expert-says-jets-cost-double-dnd-20110405-071027-195.html

$1:

"Nobody on this earth is going to be buying F-35s in flyable condition at $75 million a copy. That's not in the cards," said Wheeler, who was invited to Ottawa by the left-leaning Rideau Institute think-tank...

He said the government's estimates refer to what is known as the unit recurring flyaway cost, or URF. He said the URF is not used in Washington because it doesn't include essential things needed to actually fly an aircraft — and that includes the engine.

Of course that will really lower the maintenance costs on those babies, so maybe it's a good idea to buy them without engines. We could just train the pilots to make zooooooooooooooom noises and pretend they're flying the aircraft. Certainly confuse he hell out of the enemy.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The Center for Defense Information is a well known liberal 'think tank' in the US, comparable to the Rideau Institute in Canada. It's staff are left wing anti military types.

I'd be very surprised if the CDI thought any weapons system on the planet was a good purchase.

Look at the sources before you post andy.

Your source is an absolute moron andy.
Recurring flyaway cost: Usually reported as the "unit recurring flyaway" (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come "standard" with every airplane (and thus are "recurring").
Think before you post such idiocy.

[andyt]

He's moron because he said they'd cost 150 million and we're now up to 200 million, I'll give you that. His point was that there was no way Canada would be able to buy the planes for 75 million, and he's certainly been proven right on that point,


Here's what he actually said: "It's not clear to me whether the Canadian government's estimate for unit recurring flyaway does or does not include the engines," Wheeler said.

"It is therefore, I believe, very reasonable to expect that the parliamentary budget officer's higher estimate of $148 million per airplane — if and when you get around to buying these things — is by far and away the most accurate estimate. It's a complete airplane."

[andyt]

$1:

However, since the latter part of last year, this figure has been morphed into the newly coined term “unit recurring flyaway price” or URF Price.

If you read the disclaimer on the contractor’s Powerpoint slides, it appears that this URF price does not include the cost of the engine and related propulsion components nor some other things, such as Engineering Change Orders or ECOs.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-090710-1.html

[PublicAnimalNo9]

No andy, he's a moron because he claimed the URF didn't include stuff like engines.
Seriously, dude, didn't the words "recurring" and "flyaway" even give you a clue that the guy was a moron? And I'm reefing on this point because you felt the need to underline that part in your post as if that was the most important thing to look at.

2)You can crow all you want about how the price wasn't going to be what they said it would be. If you can point me to a gov't project or acquisition that came in at budget, I'll...well I'll probably die from shock.

3)The inflated prices that get bandied about are an average procurement
unit cost and includes spare parts, logistics and other cost figures, and is an average cost for all three variants. Canada is looking at purchasing the conventional take-off and landing version — the cheapest. In other words, Canada's F-35s wouldn't come close to costing $200M/unit. Of course, trust the Liberals to pounce on the biggest dollar amount, even though it doesn't apply to the variant Canada is looking at.

However, it all seems moot anyway.

Oh and uh, you might wanna look into GFE

[jeff744]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Gotta say it; Sukhoi 35. Far superior to anything out there, longer range (4000km), more missles (12), two engines, more manuverable, faster (2400kmh), CHEAPER $60 mil.,better radar (not dependant on AWACS).
Not as stealthy as an F35, but 1000kph faster.

Glad I'm not the only one who looked at what the Russians got and asked "what if?".

On paper the Pak Fa is supposed to be better in every catagory than the Su-35. And it's a damn fine looking aircraft to boot.



Took it from this article, a very interesting, but detailed read: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

It would actually be really nice to see Russia and Canada joint develop a fighter designed specifically for our regions, we both deal with the issue of having to secure a massive area with much of it highly underdeveloped. Even buying something the Russians built and just modifying it a bit for Canada would be immensely useful.

[Canadian_Mind]

PublicAnimalNo9 - the 200 million is for the base model. The B and C are between 225 and 250 million apiece. Rediculously expensive.

Jeff744 - I read the article in detail. I found that a lot of the design priorities of the Pak Fa are very similar to what our requirements for, and subsequently the rational for choosing the F-18 in the 80s are very similar. Heavier landing gear for rough/unprepared runways, 2 engines, integrated into the design in such a fashion for operating one engine should the other fail, 25 000 pounds of internal fuel capacity (12 500 litres approx), etc.

One of the attributes that caught my eye was a 1500 foot take-off roll, and 1300 foot landing roll. Effectively the same as what a herc is capable of.

Even without stealth features 65 million a piece isn't a bad price. The fact it has stealth capabilities comparable to the JSF, with far superior performance numbers, makes that a bargain basement price. And unlike the JSF's high-risk development approach, the Pak Fa's low risk development approach brought a much lower development price of 10 billion compared to 300 + billion, and a much higher likelyhood of seeing the aircraft on time.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

No andy, he's a moron because he claimed the URF didn't include stuff like engines.
Seriously, dude, didn't the words "recurring" and "flyaway" even give you a clue that the guy was a moron? And I'm reefing on this point because you felt the need to underline that part in your post as if that was the most important thing to look at.

2)You can crow all you want about how the price wasn't going to be what they said it would be. If you can point me to a gov't project or acquisition that came in at budget, I'll...well I'll probably die from shock.

3)The inflated prices that get bandied about are an average procurement
unit cost and includes spare parts, logistics and other cost figures, and is an average cost for all three variants. Canada is looking at purchasing the conventional take-off and landing version — the cheapest. In other words, Canada's F-35s wouldn't come close to costing $200M/unit. Of course, trust the Liberals to pounce on the biggest dollar amount, even though it doesn't apply to the variant Canada is looking at.

However, it all seems moot anyway.

Oh and uh, you might wanna look into GFE

Read my post just above yours. You use the term URF, but is that URF cost or URF price? The contractor changed it to URF price and said it didn't include engines. Maybe Wheeler isn't such an idiot after all.

Also, where does hanging this 200 mil figure on the Liberals come from - I sure don't get that from the article. Or are you saying it's that darn lamestream lieberal media that's putting this out? Never happen, the way Brock said it wouldn't be over 75 million dollars, I mean consider the source. Just a bunch of left-leaning anti-military types.

[Dragon-Dancer]

jeff744 jeff744:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Glad I'm not the only one who looked at what the Russians got and asked "what if?".

On paper the Pak Fa is supposed to be better in every catagory than the Su-35. And it's a damn fine looking aircraft to boot.



Took it from this article, a very interesting, but detailed read: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

It would actually be really nice to see Russia and Canada joint develop a fighter designed specifically for our regions, we both deal with the issue of having to secure a massive area with much of it highly underdeveloped. Even buying something the Russians built and just modifying it a bit for Canada would be immensely useful.

It would be a bit of a slap in the face to the Americans to be using Russian made aircraft in Canada but I agree, the aircraft has very nice specs and certainly has been built to function effectively in a similar environment to our own.

[jeff744]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

It would be a bit of a slap in the face to the Americans to be using Russian made aircraft in Canada but I agree, the aircraft has very nice specs and certainly has been built to function effectively in a similar environment to our own.

They could consider it payback for delaying the Keystone constantly.

[Canadian_Mind]

jeff744 jeff744:

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

It would be a bit of a slap in the face to the Americans to be using Russian made aircraft in Canada but I agree, the aircraft has very nice specs and certainly has been built to function effectively in a similar environment to our own.

They could consider it payback for delaying the Keystone constantly.

I'm sure we could stretch it beyond that.

I don't see it happening though. Not unless there is a way to integrate Russian technology with our NATO allies. Remember the issues we were having before the F-18 upgrade?