[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

bootlegga bootlegga:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

What enemies are the talking heads anticipating that we are going to face that require this level of technology(F-35)? Most of the conflicts Canada has taken part in, have been against enemies with limited technology where the abilities of the Hornet and Super Hornet far exceed anything the enemy can come up with.

That's what's lost on many proponents of the F-35. Look at where we've used the CF-18: Gulf War 1 (Iraq), Kosovo, and now Libya. Of them, only Iraq really had much of a modern air defence system, and it was flattened by the USAF in about 24 hours.

Unless the West is planning a war against Japan or China or Russia in the next generation, these planes will be never be used to their full potential.

And as long as you can both confidently predict the conflicts Canada will be engaged in during the next 30-40 years you have a point. Otherwise...

Well, as they say, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and our history (in Canada) with fighter jets is this; we've used them sparingly against less advanced countries.

Look at all the jet fighters Canada has bought since the end of WW2 and not one of them fought against an equally advanced/skilled adversary. None of ours fought MiGs over Korea, none of them flew over Vietnam, and none of them ever fought against the Warsaw Pact or the USSR.

The only place they were 'used' against the soviets was in the Arctic against bomber patrols, and I have serious doubts about sending a single engine fighter up into the Arctic (which is why Harper is demanding them).

The countries they have gone up against (already mentioned) have been well below us on the technological/skill/capability side, so I'm not too worried.

And you know what, even if some global war does break out, we can always build/buy more advanced jets.

Odds are by the time we actually need them (like a generation from now against a resurgent Russia or an aggressive China), the F-35s will be second tier planes anyways.

[EyeBrock]

I would tend to go with looking at our history Boots but things have changed drastically on the planet.

Building/buying advanced jets isn't a short notice thing. This isn't the Battle of Britain with Beaverbrook knocking out 500 fighters a month. It takes a long time to build an advanced combat aircraft.

My view is we should have a bit of kit that can at least defend Canada in 30 years time.

I don't think the Super Hornet is the 30 year fighter and I'm hoping (hoping I said)
that the F35 is.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I would tend to go with looking at our history Boots but things have changed drastically on the planet.

Building/buying advanced jets isn't a short notice thing. This isn't the Battle of Britain with Beaverbrook knocking out 500 fighters a month. It takes a long time to build an advanced combat aircraft.

My view is we should have a bit of kit that can at least defend Canada in 30 years time.

I don't think the Super Hornet is the 30 year fighter and I'm hoping (hoping I said)
that the F35 is.

I think you're being too optimistic if you honestly believe that F-35s built in 2020 will be still be front line planes in 2040. After all, our CF-18s weren't front line planes when they were used in Kosovo in 1999, only about 15 years after we bought them.

By that time, the F-35As and Bs (assuming manned fighters haven't been replaced by drones or made obsolete by some other technology like AA lasers or something) we're buying will likely have been supplanted by C/D models and other new planes from around the world (like China's J-20 or Japan's planned stealth fighter).

While Canada will be given the option to update/upgrade them, given the priority all parties place on defence spending (relatively low IMHO), that may or may not happen - after all, we only just finished upgrading the CF-18s in 2010.

And as for your assertion that it takes a long time to build advanced fighters, you're correct, but as I said, unless we have WW3, odds are the planes will be used against third rate countries - and for that we don't really need the F-35.

If WW3 breaks out, all bets are off. However, because we've been able to avoid a major global conflict for the past 70 years, I'm inclined to think that it won't happen anytime soon. War hasn't been eradicated by any stretch of the imagination, but until someone develops a credible BMD defence, I doubt large scale conventional wars like WW1 and WW2 are a thing of the past, as the temptation to use nukes to prevent defeat (or drag down your opponent) are too high for any sane person to contemplate such a conflict.

Even if WW3 does start in the next generation, given the length of time it takes to build weapons platforms, there will probably be a massive surge and then a long lull as everyone retools their production lines to build large numbers of everything we need.

This goes back to a discussion I had with Bart in another thread where he asserted Canada needs an aircraft carrier or two, amphibs, and all sorts of other power projection platforms. Based on our current needs and recent history, we don't, but if WW3 occurs then all bets are off and we'd probably need a lot of that stuff.

But we can't spend our defence dollars on what we MIGHT need 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now, but what we need right now. Otherwise there is the potential for loads of spending for platforms that weren't ever used or even necessary - money that can be spent on things we do need now - like new destroyers, AORs, SAR planes, etc.

The fact is that if WW3 breaks out, pretty much everyone but the US is going to be behind to proverbial eight ball to rearm themselves.

Honestly, I don't really care which plane we buy or how much it costs.

I just want to make sure we buy the RIGHT plane, not the RIGHT NOW plane. That's why we need to hold a real competition and see which plane is the best for Canada, not just jump in and sole source a platform that may cost as much as $30 billion over 30 years.

[uwish]

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?

There is no cheaper aircraft than the F-35 in any significant differences that fills in our role.

Australia for example purchased Super Hornets at $191.7 Million per copy including infrastructure, training, and support for 10 years

Using Harper Government's calculations,
We are paying $138.5 Million per copy with infrastructure + $92.3 Million per copy for support over 20 years, or $46.15 million for 10 years.

or

Using my calculations based on DoD's budget data, $121.5 Million per copy with infrastructure, training, etc + $121.5 million per copy for support over life time, assume life time costs of 30 years, meaning for 10 years, $40.5 million for maintenance and support per plane.

Or from pentagon on $443 Billion for 35 years for 2443 aircraft for support and maintenance in 2002 inflation rate, putting it @ $121.5 Million + $62.3 Million for 10 years

Hell, for a good measure, according to NAVAIR, F-35 will cost $30.7 thousand per flight hour to operate. Given the full service life of an aircraft is 8,000 flight hours, and for 10 years/35, the maintenance costs is estimated at around $70.2 Million for 10 years.

To compare the 2,

Purchasing Super Hornets will cost us $191.7 million for 10 years vs
F-35 costing us $184.7 Million(Harper), or $162 million (mine) or $183.8 Million (pentagon) or $191.7 Million (NAVAIR) for 10 years.

Food for thought, F-35 out performs the Super Hornet in EVERY aspect of a fighter imaginable, and yet comes out cheaper (or same with NAVAIR est)

No other "contender" costs less than the F-35, or performs better in any task. The CAF has fully endorsed the AF, so from my perspective I don't see what all the fuss it about.

[Arctic_Menace]

I'd like to take this moment to remind people that Canada has historically bought equipment it felt would meet requirements of the future. Stealth aircraft have been around since the 40's, and this is the FIRST time Canada has considered (whoops, I mean bought and paid for and was sold shoddy goods by a sleazy businessman) an aircraft such as this.

[uwish]

well, thanks for that..I can see your analysis trumps my math...I guess all the brass in the RCAF (I love calling it that BTW) were also won over by your sleazy businessman.

So sure, lets throw out all the cost advantages, the advanced capabilities of this bird and just shoot from the hip. I mean, that's what the liberals and NDP do right??