F-35 looking more like white elephant

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Maybe we should just be buying the Chinese stealth fighter. If the cost of these units in any way relates to the manufacturing cost of other consumer goods from China, this should only cost us about $16 per airplane :rolleyes:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

The so-called 5th generation fighter was built with features designed to help avoid enemy radar and ensure American supremacy in the skies for decades.


But there is now the potential for competition from China, which this week unveiled its first radar-evading combat aircraft and fueled a sense of a military rivalry between the two powers.

At home, the Lockheed Martin F-35 is getting increased criticism even from some at the Pentagon.

Defense officials say the original cost estimates have now doubled to make each plane's price tag reach some 92 million dollars.

At the same time, the contract awarded in 2001 had been planned to last 10 years, but has been extended to 2016 because of testing and design issues.

Lockheed Martin, which is working with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, is developing three versions of the aircraft, which are being designed for ground attack as well as reconnaissance missions.

The F-35A is designed to replace the F-16 and A-10 of the US Air Force, while the F-35C is designed for deployment on aircraft carriers to supplant to F-18, and the F-35B would have a vertical takeoff capacity and replace Harrier aircraft.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned the cost overruns cannot continue and expressed particular concern over the short take-off and vertical landing variant.

"The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint," he said recently.

For the short-takeoff version, Gates has ordered "the equivalent of a two-year probation," adding that "if we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled."

As part of a cost-saving drive, the Pentagon chief has decided to delay the purchase of 124 of the 449 units of this version until 2016.

Another bone of contention is a second engine being developed for the fighter by General Electric and Rolls Royce in case the Pratt & Whitney engine is not up to par. Gates contends this second engine is "unneeded."

Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.

"The incredibly unfortunate phrase 'too big to fail' applies to this aircraft more than any other defense program," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group.

"It's difficult to think of a civil or military program in the past decade that hasn't experienced similar delays and cost overruns."

Still, it may be hard to make many changes to the F-35 program because Britain and seven other countries have been closely involved in its development.

The United States is covering 90 percent of the cost of the development but has participation from Britain, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia.

Other nations, including Israel and Singapore, have signed contracts to buy the plane.

"The US wants a globalized JSF program for a combination of strategic and economic reasons," said Aboulafia.

"It greatly simplifies logistics, training and doctrine for coalition warfighting. Dominating the military aerospace export business is certainly a strong draw, too. It's as much an industrial policy as a fighter."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Darkwing Duck
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:30 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Darkwing Duck »

I thought we hashed out this topic already. You just renamed it.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=68590&hilit=Liberals+to+cancel+F35
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kowalski: Sir, we may be out of fuel.
Skipper: What makes you think that?
Kowalski: We've lost engine one, and engine two is no longer on fire.
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft
isn't that over $150M per aircraft?

Gosh, the super Hornet looks better and better, doesn't it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by cdnpilot77 »

This is the line that bothered me...
."It's difficult to think of a civil or military program in the past decade that hasn't experienced similar delays and cost overruns."
So does that make it right just because it happens? Why not factor that in among the original estimations given to the tax paying public that are buying these jets instead of consistently hitting us with ever higher costs. I understand that companies would then bid themselves out of projects but where is the accountability? I am all for military spending at any time but being wise about it...is that too much to ask?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
skat0r
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: cyul

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by skat0r »

Wasnt the US supposed to be in a economic crisis?! lol
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Rockie »

This cigar is coming dangerously close to blowing up in Harper's face.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cyeg66
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: of my mind is in gutter.

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by cyeg66 »

Hedley wrote:
382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft
isn't that over $150M per aircraft?

Gosh, the super Hornet looks better and better, doesn't it?
That's what I always said. Someone had suggested that the SH cost as much (and maybe more) than the JSF. Bollocks, I said.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Turn right/left heading XXX, vectors for the hell of it.
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6605
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Beefitarian »

I vote we cancell the order and sell them missles instead. They can cut up what ever they've built so far for scrap.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ktcanuck
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:58 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by ktcanuck »

Perhaps the F-35 was the price of improved US-Canadian relations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
winds_in_flight_wtf
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by winds_in_flight_wtf »

The reason this topic was brought up again, simply because it is on the front page

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... sists?bn=1

In response to the fellow above: Or maybe, we need new fighters to replace our aging - 30 year old relics, which would be obsolete without the upgrades received over the past many years. The ignorance and blindness of Canadians these days makes me queasy. The fact people insist on playing these”political” games is beyond ridiculous. I consider myself more liberal, but FFS, is our country really that daft when it comes to our own national security? Where is the pride? Do you really think 10 Billion over a number of years is that bad when you look at how much more is pissed away every year? The fact we are not currently being invaded or fighting F22s / SU30s in the sky is a lame excuse for not providing our already depleted military with the right tools to last us another 30 years.

As i said in a previous thread on the topic in question : The same loud mouth hypocrites would be the first ones shooting criticism at PM Harper had he given this contract to EADS , Saab, or what have you. There is no win win here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Darkwing Duck
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:30 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Darkwing Duck »

Nicely said W.I.F.wtf
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kowalski: Sir, we may be out of fuel.
Skipper: What makes you think that?
Kowalski: We've lost engine one, and engine two is no longer on fire.
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... es-eng.asp
Because we cannot afford to acquire and operate multiple, specialized fighter fleets, tomorrow’s fighter aircraft must be capable of undertaking multiple roles, which comprise a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface combat roles. In a more generic sense, the fighter must be capable of undertaking the defence roles we demand of it, whether that is northern sovereignty patrols, intercept roles, war-fighting, surveillance and more.

Furthermore, to be prepared for the future, the aircraft must be flexible enough to deal with threats and missions that were unexpected at its time of conception.
The analysis of the quantitative mandatory requirements associated with these high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada’s next fighter made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our mission needs in the increasingly complex future security environment.

The F-35 Lightning II is the only aircraft that meets our mandatory requirements and the only 5th generation aircraft available to Canada. The 5th generation F-22 Raptor is an excellent air superiority fighter that is being upgraded through the addition of selected capabilities that have their origin in the F-35, but the United States government does not permit foreign sales. Russia has a 5th generation under development, and China is expected to do the same.
Furthermore, the aircraft is sustainable. We will be able to replace lost aircraft – or acquire additional aircraft if the future global situation demands it – because the production line will operate until at least 2035.

Almost 50 pages of discussion. Generally more pertinent than what we get on avcanada when discussing about military stuff:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/ ... cseen.html


Hedley, a lot of people talk about the SH. Apparently thought, those in the know about the air force requirements and the procurement process do not think it's a suitable aircraft. You have to take into account the fact that Canada is very probably buying a fighter for the next 40 years. The SH won't do it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

The SH won't do it
I doubt that, very much.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

Can you tell us why?

Why do you think the people responsible to evaluate the air force needs for the following decades and responsible to evaluate every facets of the procurement are wrong and you are not?

I serioulsy don't know if it's the right airplane for Canada, but I do know that it's very unlikely that I could be in a position to judge if it is or not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

Don't get me wrong. If I was in the military, I wouldn't want a re-treaded hornet, I'd want the latest whizz-bang toy to play with, too.

But you've got to back up. Before you start looking at airplanes, you might try looking at what Canadians need in a speedy airplane. What missions is it going to be tasked with?

While military pilots might push for a squadron of F-22's (I would, if I were them) so we could play Knights Of The Sky, that really hasn't been something that Canadians have done since the Korean war. When was the last time a Canadian went toe-to-toe with a MiG or Sukhoi?

Americans with their F-22 establish air superiority, even if the Canadian military won't admit it. And, we're not getting F-22's any time anyways - they are NOT eligigle for export. Not that we could afford them anyways, at a third of a billion per!

There are far superior choices for doing the other things speedy airplanes are tasked with. For example, close air support. An Apache/Longbow is far superior for that, and far cheaper. Hard to beat that combination.

I would agree that we do need an interceptor for border enforcement, when foreign aircraft lumber into our airspace. If we don't have that, we are not a sovereign nation. However, the JSF is not the best choice for interception, which is what we need to have, in a speedy airplane. Other aircraft do it faster and cheaper. Again, hard to beat that combination.

Regardless, no one cares what's the best choice for the military or the taxpayer. The choice will be based on politics. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that billions of dollars floating around won't cloud anyone's judgement.

You're probably too young to remember, but do you know how Air Canada ended up with Airbus's instead of Boeings? Airbus had to kick back $500,000 in bribes, per airframe to the canadian government, to make the sale. Hmmm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

I understand what you mean very well. It sure sounds reasonable and a lot of people have the same kind of opinion (you can read it in the 47 pages of army.ca discussion).

BUT,

I'll quote again Lieutenant-General André Deschamps:
The analysis of the quantitative mandatory requirements associated with these high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada’s next fighter made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our mission needs in the increasingly complex future security environment.
Apparently, the said mandatory requirements are classified.
I have no idea why, since if they want to sell the F-35 to the population, it might be better to explain in details why we need such an airplane. I guess they have their reasons to keep it classified. Were the requirements for the F-18 classified 30ish years ago? (it's a real question, not rethorical!)

So your opinion is based on what you assume Canada needs. The procurement should be done based on what it really needs, and sadly, us mere mortals do not have access to such information.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

the mandatory requirements are classified
How wonderfully convenient for them :wink:

Does Airbus make a fighter?

I guess no one here remembers the DOD employee here in Ottawa who was convicted of millions of dollars in fraud. He stole an amazing amount of money over many years, because any time anyone asked what he was doing, he shut them down with, "It's classified!"

Good work if you can get it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

The fact that the government tries to sell the F-35 to the population by only talking about the economical benifits canadian companies will get is what really bugs me.
Why not explain why we need it? Saying "it's the only 5th generation aircraft available" is not sufficient. It is actually a "begging the question" type of fallacious argument.

So they can't tell us because it's classified... Why is it then?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by iflyforpie »

Hedley wrote: Does Airbus make a fighter?
Their parent company, EADS, does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

Maybe with a little deja vu, they could offer to kick back a paltry $1m per airframe to pay off the government officials who make the decision to buy their airframe?

It's been done before, all cloaked in secrecy. They even got away with it last time, and no one cared, so why would anyone care this time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”