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
oldncold
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 11:17 am
Location: south of 78N latitude , north of 30'latitude

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by oldncold »

has no one been listening kill ratio is where it is at when it comes to fighter aircraft always has been always will be .

87to 1 f22 for 45to 1 f35 18 to 25to 1 for f18 missle loading giving the variable and of course the proficiency of pilot.


quick history lesson what eventually suppressed the luftwaffe over germany before dday ? massive # day after day massive overwhemling bombers covered by p51 mustangs allowed the bomber command to wreck havoc on german industry . fuel and other war making materials .


canada needs the fighters yes but i would also feel more comfortable sitting as we are on the biggest pile of natural resources ,in the 2nd largest land mass with more numbers alot more in fact. could we not impose a 5 $a barrel export tax on oil to the us so that we can cover the cost of the new fighter program and have several hundred fighter jets ? at 2 million barrels a day we would have it paid for in spades pronto . check 6 have a safe new year and 2012
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Guido
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Over there.

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Guido »

oldncold wrote:canada needs the fighters yes but i would also feel more comfortable sitting as we are on the biggest pile of natural resources ,in the 2nd largest land mass with more numbers alot more in fact. could we not impose a 5 $a barrel export tax on oil to the us so that we can cover the cost of the new fighter program and have several hundred fighter jets ? at 2 million barrels a day we would have it paid for in spades pronto . check 6 have a safe new year and 2012
Great idea, however we have this funny little thing called NAFTA that prevents us from imposing tariffs on stuff going to our "partners" in the US - particularly on oil...
---------- ADS -----------
 
SAR_YQQ
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by SAR_YQQ »

AuxBatOn wrote:As far as not having contingency planning for attrition, well, the line will be opened for many years after we buy them. I am sure that when the needs come to get new airframe, we will be able to buy more.
Don't count on that. We lost 1 of 15 Cormorant SAR helicopters and no replacement was ever considered. Same goes for all the E/H model Hercs that we have lost over the years. Heck - they're still making/refurbing Sea Kings and no replacements have been sought for them over the years either.

My point - we will be lucky to get 65 jets, don't plan on getting any more. My advice to the plastic F.A.G. community - take it easy with the fleet you have (ie don't screw around on your first operational solo mission and don't turn your landing lights on at night in a snow storm).
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

shitdisturber wrote:
How many of the Hornets that we lost for one reason or another were replaced, even though the line was open? If you're unsure, I can tell you; that'd be NONE! If you're making an argument in favour of something you should at least use reasonable statements as part of your arguments.
The Hornet procurement 35 years ago and the JSF procurement today are 2 very different things. The mindset buying the JSF is different. I would not be surprised at all to see that in the contract (buying more later to take attrition into account), especially while they are still at peak production, when the aircraft are cheapest. After all, all you have to pay at that point is the airframe, since maintenance and training is already taken into account.

I think I have a good understanding of the fighter force... No need to school me on that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

SAR_YQQ wrote: Don't count on that. We lost 1 of 15 Cormorant SAR helicopters and no replacement was ever considered. Same goes for all the E/H model Hercs that we have lost over the years. Heck - they're still making/refurbing Sea Kings and no replacements have been sought for them over the years either.
We bought those aircraft in a sufficient number to account for attrition. Different ball game..
SAR_YQQ wrote: (ie don't screw around on your first operational solo mission
Must have missed something. Are you talking about 2005 in Bagotville?
SAR_YQQ wrote: don't turn your landing lights on at night in a snow storm).
Cheap shot. Read the accident report. The root cause was not having the landing light one at night in a snowstorm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

Big Pistons Forever wrote:Nobody is disputing the amazing technology and capability the F 35 represents, the issue in my mind is can we afford it.
If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's. Everything else costs more and doesn't even come close to what the JSF has for tech. Hell, the F-22 is basically a 4.5gen fighter until it gets the F35's avionics.
---------- 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 »

frosti wrote: If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's.
Even though I agree with you on the F35 subject, I must say that this sort of false argument (or is "logical fallacy" more appropriate in this case? My english is not good enough to discern both) doesn't bring anything to the debate and reduces the credibility of your posts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
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 »

frosti wrote:
Big Pistons Forever wrote:Nobody is disputing the amazing technology and capability the F 35 represents, the issue in my mind is can we afford it.
If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's. Everything else costs more and doesn't even come close to what the JSF has for tech. Hell, the F-22 is basically a 4.5gen fighter until it gets the F35's avionics.
Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

trampbike wrote:Even though I agree with you on the F35 subject, I must say that this sort of false argument (or is "logical fallacy" more appropriate in this case? My english is not good enough to discern both) doesn't bring anything to the debate and reduces the credibility of your posts.
The debate really is pointless. People will believe what they feel, not what facts and rational thought prove otherwise.



Like I've said before, the JSF outcome in Canada will not depend on what your average Canadian citizen thinks. With a Conservative majority we basically elected to buy the F35. I have a strange suspicion that those against the purchase are also still sour from last May.
---------- 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 »

Personally I'm against purchasing anything I don't know the cost of regardless of who the government is. I dare say if it were the Liberals you would be too, but for some reason because the Conservatives are in power it's A-OK.

AuxBatOn I think is just looking forward to a shiny new toy. In his position I might be too.
---------- 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 »

I have a strange suspicion that those against the purchase are also still sour from last May.
Couldn't be further from the truth, at least for me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mostly Harmless
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Betelgeuse

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Mostly Harmless »

It was the Liberals who originally brokered the deal for the F 35's, and it just happens to be the Conservatives who are in power to finalize the deal; it was the Liberal's who chose the F 35 and put our money into the project in order to secure some of the research and construction contracts, in order to create some jobs for Canadians out of the deal.

I don't really care what we buy at this point, but we need to buy something to replace our F 18's. For those who want nothing... you live in a lovely fantasy world and I hope the weather there is nice and that the skies are pink and filled with cotton candy clouds. For those arguing that we need to buy F 18's again because we have them now and the other planes are new and therefore scary... well, with that logic, I think we should buy Sabre's. We had them a long time ago, and they performed great. They can be had cheap and we know them. Of course, they are only single engine... maybe we need to start producing the CF 100 again. That has 2 engines, was made in Canada and it is a proven type.

God people... get a grip. We piss and moan in this country every time the government needs to spend money on the military, only to bitch about the fact our military has no capability when we need them... or that we depend upon the US for our sovereign defence and that we have no autonomy to make our own decisions in the world. You CAN'T have it both ways. The reason we are having to spend massive amounts of money on our military now is because it has been the budgetary whipping boy of the government for decades now... every government, Liberal and Conservative alike... and it is so damn run down that they are falling apart. We need new planes... NEW planes. We need new ships. We need new vehicles, and all the crap that comes with it. Every branch has received new equipment or is in the process of receiving new equipment. New ships are being built... not one of you is bitching about that. New trucks were bought... not a peep. The amount of griping over new planes has reached a point that it is just downright frustrating. Military doctrine... control the high ground. Since world war 2, that has meant the sky. Because everything on the ground and sea can be destroyed by a plane. Since I doubt any of us knows the exact (and secret) capabilities of any of these aircraft, none of us is an expert. If it is really this big of a deal to you, personally, join the military and get involved in the procurement process or, run for election and join the procurement process. But quit bitching. I hope that at the end of the day, we get something useful in a quantity large enough to do the job, at a fair price... unlike the EH 101 fiasco. A Helicopter so nice, we bought it twice... all over this kind of political bullshit.

I'm off to pour myself a drink.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

Rockie wrote:
Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.
I'm basing my remarks on facts. Here they are again:

F-35 LRIP 4 airframe (with engine): 125M$
F/A-18E/F: 130M$
Rafale: 125M$
Eurofighter: 140M$

The first one is still in low rate initial production and the price is expected to reduce. The last 3 are what the planes were bought for. Like I said, even if the program is 170% the expected purchase price (75M$, not including inflation), we are still doing well, and that is not including the economic benefits of having the JSF in Canada (parts building, technology and returns when non-participant countries buy the JSF) and the obvious tactical advantage the JSF will being over the other 3.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
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 »

I know what you're basing them on. Regarding those numbers as facts particularly where the F35 is concerned is where you're making the mistake. If those were in fact "facts" there would be no issue. That most definitely is not the case and you know it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.
I'm basing my remarks on facts. Here they are again:

F-35 LRIP 4 airframe (with engine): 125M$
F/A-18E/F: 130M$
Rafale: 125M$
Eurofighter: 140M$

The first one is still in low rate initial production and the price is expected to reduce. The last 3 are what the planes were bought for. Like I said, even if the program is 170% the expected purchase price (75M$, not including inflation), we are still doing well, and that is not including the economic benefits of having the JSF in Canada (parts building, technology and returns when non-participant countries buy the JSF) and the obvious tactical advantage the JSF will being over the other 3.
Unit costs are a meaningless metric for comparison. The only true comparator is the total program cost over the life of the airframe ( usually calculated at 25 years). This includes all costs to own and operate the airplane and an estimate for the cost of airframe updates. A true understanding of total costs only comes with a mature airframe that has been in operational service for a number of years. Since this is obviously not the case for the F 35 what the final number will be for the F 35 will not be known until at least the 2020 time frame. Of note there has never been a new fighter development program where the costs projections during the aircraft development were significantly understated by the manufacturer. In the case of the Eurofighter the projected total cost of the aircraft when it was in the equivalent of the LRIP 4 stage of development turned out to be approximately half of what has turned out to be the actual costs now being experienced by air forces operating the type...........
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

Big Pistons Forever wrote:
Unit costs are a meaningless metric for comparison. The only true comparator is the total program cost over the life of the airframe ( usually calculated at 25 years). This includes all costs to own and operate the airplane and an estimate for the cost of airframe updates. A true understanding of total costs only comes with a mature airframe that has been in operational service for a number of years. Since this is obviously not the case for the F 35 what the final number will be for the F 35 will not be known until at least the 2020 time frame. Of note there has never been a new fighter development program where the costs projections during the aircraft development were significantly understated by the manufacturer. In the case of the Eurofighter the projected total cost of the aircraft when it was in the equivalent of the LRIP 4 stage of development turned out to be approximately half of what has turned out to be the actual costs now being experienced by air forces operating the type...........
Well, even for a mature fleet, it's impossible to know the real total program cost until you retire the airframe. Anything before are estimates.

The major difference between Eurofighter and JSF is the economy of scale. There are 471 Eurofighter orders, 300 are built to date (since 2003). The JSF production line will almost build 300 a year at peak production. This is where you save money.

Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
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 »

AuxBatOn wrote:Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.
Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by lownslow »

If Avcanada had existed in the fifties, I bet this same argument would have been raging over the Arrow...

LnS.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.
Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.
I don't think there is any point reasoning with you anymore....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
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 »

Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.
Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.
Can you elaborate on how a real life contract between the US and LM is comparable to a fairy tale, or even worse, conspiracy theories?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”