The F-35 is not dead

[Gravol]

The guys/gals who fly the jets alongside the guys/gals who make decisions (who eat drink and breathe this crap) have outlined the pros and cons. I've heard more pro-F35 chat from them.

The guys/gals in uniform rightfully aren't concerned with paying for their equipment, but somebody has to. That makes it very much Joe Schmedlap from Medicine Hat's concern whether he knows anything about it or not...because he's paying for it.

Rockie,

Bazaar. Economics is something they seem to consider. Did Joe Schmedlap have to contribute to the Air Canada quagmire once upon a time?

If we relied only on the governing party (whoever it may be) for information we will only get what they want us to hear. This party happens to be worse than any other that's come before it in that regard.

Seriously? So we are the verge of some sort of neo-fascist takeover or what? Not the first government or the last.

So we rely on the media to tell us the rest of the story which is something called "free press". That's a fundamental, defining principle of democracy that uniformed people like frosti are supposed to be defending. The press are not experts and I haven't actually seen any reporter at the CBC or anywhere else pretend to be. They can only report what the real experts like the AG, PBO and non-manufacturer employed pilots are saying about what our government is hell bent on buying with our money.

Sorry that's a very odd and frivolous point for a variety of reasons. As if the CBC doesn't have a "politically motivated" bias . As if the Toronto Star doesn't have a politically motivated and bias. The press are not experts? They try to remind you every day that they are the experts. Hell, the CBC loves to put Marc Garneau in the spotlight because he's an "expert". From day one of this announcement, the "fair and balanced media" you would endorse has done everything in its power to taint the program regardless of it's potential benefits.

Out of curiosity, why would the Canadian government be hell bent on buying a jet that is political and economic suicide? What are we all missing?

[Rockie]

Economics is something they seem to consider.

At the operators level they do not consider the economics of capital expenditures. Trust me.

Did Joe Schmedlap have to contribute to the Air Canada quagmire once upon a time?

Probably, and he would have been remiss not to demand accountability.

Seriously? So we are the verge of some sort of neo-fascist takeover or what? Not the first government or the last.

I don't recall saying neo-fascist. I did say the government cannot be counted on for information. I also said "any" government, but there is no question this one is the worst.

From day one of this announcement, the "fair and balanced media" you would endorse has done everything in its power to taint the program regardless of it's potential benefits.

Correction, they've done everything in their power to tell Canadians what the government refuses to.

Out of curiosity, why would the Canadian government be hell bent on buying a jet that is political and economic suicide?

That's the million dollar question that nobody can figure out and the government isn't saying. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why the government didn't follow long established procurement guidelines in place to protect your interests until they were forced to by media scrutiny.

[Expat]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013 ... warns.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ewski.html

frosti, you know Traven?
Cheers,

[Gravol]

Rockie, I am by no means a professional when it comes to this program. But I do take with a grain of salt what the media spoon feeds me just as much as I do with the Harper Gov. That being said, I will respond to some points in your post. Please check your inbox when able.

Economics is something they seem to consider.

From day one of this announcement, the "fair and balanced media" you would endorse has done everything in its power to taint the program regardless of it's potential benefits.

Correction, they've done everything in their power to tell Canadians what the government refuses to.

Then we can agree to disagree. I believe the mainstream media in this country has no interest in telling Canadians what the government refuses to tell them.

Out of curiosity, why would the Canadian government be hell bent on buying a jet that is political and economic suicide?

That's the million dollar question that nobody can figure out and the government isn't saying. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why the government didn't follow long established procurement guidelines in place to protect your interests until they were forced to by media scrutiny.

Do you believe the current government made its decision based on recommendations put forward by our own DND or do you think they made their decision via looking at a photo of the jet? I do not believe there is a hidden conspiracy theory. The point is anything they say will be scrutinized. Let's face it, the Government doesn't like being wrong. It makes things tough during election time. Politically speaking, Harper is one tough cookie.

Once again, the media scrutinized the F-35 from the get go as I said previously WITH OF COURSE, one minor exception. When this was officially brought to the table (under a liberal government), the CBC ate it all up. I at times can't help but see the irony

[frosti]

The guys/gals in uniform rightfully aren't concerned with paying for their equipment, but somebody has to.

Did you forget that the people in uniform also pay taxes? They have a say in it just as anyone else. Considering they will be the ones operating this equipment, and some depending their lives on it, for the next 30 years, I'd say their opinion on what the government buys has a greater impact than some civy with a "I don't like it" mentality. Worry about the money, not the equipment. I don't hear too many complaints for $40 billion for Super hornets, yet for stupid reasons, $40 billion for JSF's is outrageous.

[azimuthaviation]

More good news for you frosti

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-retrofi ... 26819.html

Exclusive: Retrofits to add $1.7 billion to cost of F-35 - GAO report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retrofits of F-35 fighter planes to fix problems found in flight testing will likely top $1.7 billion, a U.S. government watchdog said in the draft of a new report about the Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter program.

The flight testing was a success because they discovered faults, and they know how much it will cost to fix it. Thts better than anyone expected. (Gotta love frosti's positive outlook on everything, it is inspiring)

[Rockie]

id you forget that the people in uniform also pay taxes? They have a say in it just as anyone else.

That is absolutely true, however when I wore the uniform I can tell you I didn't give much thought to how much money the jet cost the rest of the taxpayers or how much it cost to operate it. I find it impossible to believe you do.

Anyway, how many taxpayers are there in uniform compared to the rest of the population?

[frosti]

While internet armchair generals discuss what they think is best, real pilots get real training on real jets.

http://f-35.ca/2013/nellis-pilots-take- ... l-testing/

“During my transition to F-15E, the simulator was like a black and white T.V. screen hooked up to a cockpit,” he said. “It shows how far we’ve come in (pilot) training. It’s humbling for me to be around this world class environment.”

Maybe the dinosaur pilots on this forum are just afraid of change?

That is absolutely true, however when I wore the uniform I can tell you I didn't give much thought to how much money the jet cost the rest of the taxpayers or how much it cost to operate it. I find it impossible to believe you do.

I still think about how much money we currently waste trying to keep these old relics flying. Stuffing new avionics into a 30 year old airframe and expecting things to work correctly. The amount of money we throw at these things is outrageous.

[TG]

Interesting article about

Five Military Cuts That Would Fix Sequestration (US defence spending)
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... tion#r=rss
And its first subject is:

1. Ground the glitch-ridden F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.
The F-35 was supposed to produce state-of-the-art stealth jets. It is seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over cost estimates. At almost $400 billion, the F-35 has become the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history and one that offers only marginal improvements over existing aircraft

Who could argue with that

[YYZSaabGuy]

I still think about how much money we currently waste trying to keep these old relics flying. Stuffing new avionics into a 30 year old airframe and expecting things to work correctly. The amount of money we throw at these things is outrageous.

Great point, Frosti. Just look at those B-52s - overhauled and retrofitted so many times they've become a complete joke. They can barely get airborne, let alone deliver a payload. I have it from reliable sources that elements of the Iraqi army can confirm this for you.

[Jonathan Goldsmith]

Did you forget that the people in uniform also pay taxes?

Wrong. If the federal budget were a swimming pool and government employees were drinking from it they would claim they did their share to keep the pool filled by pissing in it.

[Gravol]

Did you forget that the people in uniform also pay taxes?

Wrong. If the federal budget were a swimming pool and government employees were drinking from it they would claim they did their share to keep the pool filled by pissing in it.

Classy. Right up there with Azimuth.

Anyway, DND employees pay their taxes. If you could provide a source stating DND employees pay NO tax that would be great.

[Expat]

Having been in the military, and having been out of it, I see the debate on a broader scale.
One one side, you have the military, the contractors, the politicians who represent contractor ridings. They all stand to benefit from war mongering, and equipment purchases. Their view of the threat is totally distorted by their employment, by their surroundings, and paradigms. The five military programs listed above are typical unrealistic and costly programs, in which they all believe. They see these programs as essential for the survival of the nation.
Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, and other places were carpet bombed using old technology. We seem to want to go to war when the risk is limited. We never dared to attack the USSR, as our losses would have been too great. So we concentrate on making threats out of impoverished, sanction-starved countries, to justify these weapons systems.

I do not watch any main stream media, and consider myself better informed as a result. The CBC is often blamed for being to far to the left, but just may be, may be it sits in the center...

[frosti]

that offers only marginal improvements over existing aircraft

[/quote]

Opinion.

I still think about how much money we currently waste trying to keep these old relics flying. Stuffing new avionics into a 30 year old airframe and expecting things to work correctly. The amount of money we throw at these things is outrageous.

Great point, Frosti. Just look at those B-52s - overhauled and retrofitted so many times they've become a complete joke. They can barely get airborne, let alone deliver a payload. I have it from reliable sources that elements of the Iraqi army can confirm this for you.

Comparing a slow, lazy bomber to a fighter jet that pulls G's on a constant basis. Great comparison. What is your experience with the CF-18's after the R2 upgrades?

[YYZSaabGuy]

What is your experience with the CF-18's after the R2 upgrades?

Zero. Precisely the level of experience you seem to have with basic economics, basic military procurement processes, basic democratic governance principles within a parliamentary system, or any form of basic common sense. And if you're referring to the Incremental Modernization Program completed approximately 10 years ago, it involved a number of mods and improvements to the CF-18's avionics, mission computer, stores management, and GPS nav systems, among others. Hopefully you already knew that: what's your point?

[Tom H]

By Frosti:

Comparing a slow, lazy bomber to a fighter jet that pulls G's on a constant basis. Great comparison. What is your experience with the CF-18's after the R2 upgrades?

So now give us your in flight evaluation Frosti

[Old fella]

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/column ... won-t-work

It indicates a saving in the 20+B range, now I certainly do not believe everything I read in the papers/on-line/ from talking heads but is this option(Super Hornet) worth taking a serious look at..........

[azimuthaviation]

More good news for the F35

One of two F-35 fighter jets headed to a Nevada air base made an unscheduled landing in Lubbock, Texas on Monday after a caution light came on in the cockpit, according to a Pentagon spokesman and the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp.

Looks like the caution lights are functioning just like theyre supposed to, what a great system! Why is this even on the news??

[frosti]

It indicates a saving in the 20+B range

Don't know where they are getting their numbers from, but $55million a jet isn't happening. This was already discussed.

[kamikaze]

"Anyway, how many taxpayers are there in uniform compared to the rest of the population?"

That's easy ... about 0.0025% (60 000/ 24 000 000).

That's income tax. If you include sales taxes, it's an even smaller number.

[YYZSaabGuy]

It indicates a saving in the 20+B range

Don't know where they are getting their numbers from, but $55million a jet isn't happening. This was already discussed.

Well...$55 million per aircraft was the figure quoted by those evil lefty pricks at the CBC, and I didn't see Boeing issue any press releases challenging the story.

And if you don't believe the CBC, FlightGlobal ran an article a while back http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... irali.html quoting a 5-year U.S. Navy contract awarded to Boeing for the delivery of 124 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs at an average price of just under $43 million apiece (there was no breakdown of the cost difference between the variants). Interestingly, the article quoted historical pricing to show a steady decline in pricing over the 2000 - 2010 timeframe.

So: unless you've got some convincing 3rd-party evidence to the contrary (as opposed to unsupported assertions), Old fella's $55 million figure doesn't look out of line. Particularly since it can be off by a factor of 2X before it comes close to current estimates for the not-yet-developed F-35.

[frosti]

So: unless you've got some convincing 3rd-party evidence to the contrary (as opposed to unsupported assertions), Old fella's $55 million figure doesn't look out of line. Particularly since it can be off by a factor of 2X before it comes close to current estimates for the not-yet-developed F-35.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each,

I don't know why the opposition in Canada doesn't just advocate for buying something like the old Taiwanese F-CK-1. Two engines, the old Lear jet TFE731 types (over 10,000 made, very reliable) It has ok performance for Arctic patrol (M1.5 +, >55000Ft), yanks and banks a little bit, halfway decent little radar. Low cost to operate, and probably less than $30 m per in 65 quantity. AIDC would probably license and let them build it locally - Then the opposition doesn't have to pretend they want to play with the big boys in other parts of the world. They need to broaden the alternative scenarios they are examining. They don't want Eurofighters, Rafales or even Super Hornets, if you press the Canadian opposition to speak plainly. At least the Aussies are stand up and put up types, whatever they buy. That's a real discussion over there, and not a lie.

[Colonel Sanders]

pretend they want to play with the big boys in other parts of the world

Has it ever occurred to you that Canada is a small
country with sovereign debt problems which simply
can't afford to "play with the big boys", as you put it?

If you were a sailor, you would be hollering that we
need to spend many more billions on ships to "play
with the big boys". Maybe we should blow a billion
dollars on used British submarines?

If you were in the army, you would be hollering that
we need to spend many more billions on tanks and
artillery and assault helicopters to "play with the big
boys".

Frosti: we simple Canadian taxpayers can't afford you.

I was explaining to my American friends a while back
that all Canada owned was four (count them, four)
C-17's for our entire military. They laughed and laughed.
But do you remember how difficult it was to get funding
for that purchase? A billion dollars, for just 4 aircraft.

[YYZSaabGuy]

So: unless you've got some convincing 3rd-party evidence to the contrary (as opposed to unsupported assertions), Old fella's $55 million figure doesn't look out of line. Particularly since it can be off by a factor of 2X before it comes close to current estimates for the not-yet-developed F-35.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... [quote]The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each,

[/quote]Thanks for the link to the Australian article, which throws out an unsupported/unsubstantiated $100 million figure. Not quite what I had in mind.

Try this instead: http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... _13-05.pdf. It's a December press release from the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, noting the Australian government's potential purchase of "up to" 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft, 54 F414-GE-402 engines (48 installed and 6 spares) 2 engine inlet devices, 35 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 70 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT) or RT-1957(C)/USQ-190(V) Joint Tactical Radio Systems, 40 AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems, 24 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 72 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers, 15 M61A2 Vulcan Cannons, 32 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles or Night Vision Cueing Device System, 40 AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponders, 80 AN/ARC-210/RT-1990A(C) Communication Systems, 100 Digital Management Devices with KG-60’s, 36 Accurate Navigation Systems, 30 AN/AYK-29(V) Distributed Targeting Systems (DTS), 4 AN/PYQ-21 DTS Mission Planning Transit Cases, 24 AN/ASQ-228 Advance Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods, 40 AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKL), 80 KIV-78 Mode 4/5 Module, 48 COMSEC Management Workstations (CMWS), 24 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 80 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and 400 AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, personnel training and training equipment, aircraft ferry and refueling support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.7 billion, or $154.2 million per aircraft, obviously way north of The Australian's $100 million and way, way north of the CBC's $50 million.

The lessons here are that:
1. The CBC's $50 million figure could not have been an "all in" cost (which I think was your point).
2. We need a comparative analysis of the available alternatives, taking into account the all-in acquisition and lifetime operating costs. This was the whole point of the F-35 reset announced in December.
3. It's going to be difficult to nail down the F-35 "all in" acquisition cost until development is complete and total order quantities, including from the U.S. DoD, are finalized. Indications so far, though, are that it's going to be significantly more expensive than most if not all of the alternatives, including the SH. This comment is true for both acquisition and lifetime operating costs.
4. That said, the question remains: do the F-35's 5th generation capabilities provide enough benefit over a 4.5 generation SH to justify the additional acquisition and operating costs, given reasonable assumptions around the likely RCAF mission profile?

*Edited 1X by YYZSaabGuy to fix URL link.

[Old fella]

Some more tidbits floating in..............

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/ ... jets/34001