F-35 looking more like white elephant

[trampbike]

My wag would be thirty F-22's would be a superior force to 65 F-35s leaving enough money for the RCAF to get some A-10's and a few Herc's on wheel skis and a few new Buffalo's

Since one of the clearly stated mission of the RCAF is to be able to project force abroad and to participate in NATO or UN missions (when fighters are sent, it's mostly for strike missions), how would the F22 and A-10 be more efficient than the F35?

It's easy to check the per aircraft cost of different platform, and then do the addition and end up saying we can buy this this and this type of aircraft for the same money. However, you have to consider the costs and logistics involved in the maintenance, training and support for each of these platforms. If the RCAF could afford to buy and operate that many platforms, I'm sure they would do it instead of putting all their eggs in the F35 basket.

What costs don't you think we'll be spared if not R&D costs?

Production and sustainment costs

I just don't see how R&D costs can be separated from the total cost of the plane in any way that makes sense.

Still, it looks like they somehow are. Purchasing 65 F35 through the FMS instead of the MoU would cost Canada about 900M USD more, and that is because a higher share of R&D is included.

In any event it is simply not realistic to think the Americans will absorb the entirety of R&D when the reason they're selling the thing in the first place is to mitigate the cost of development.

It never was said that US were absorbing the entirety of R&D. They absorb most of it, and the other JSF partners contribute to it, up to a maximum amount specified in the MoU. I guess it's true however, like Iflyforpie said, that this could change in the future. The MoU can be ammended. Canada can leave it if it gets ridiculous thought (that's where the apparent lack of plan B hurts the most ).

Even if the USA did build more F-22's, they would be delivered to the USAF, not any foreign country.

Exactly. Japan and Australia showed great interest in the F22.
Didn't work out. Guess what they chose instead...

[frosti]

Does anyone feel a fleet of 65 planes regardless of how good they are short of being magic can defend our borders? Or should we just hope that continues to be a non issue?

I'm just wondering how you expect someone...anyone...to send a sizeable fleet of fighters into Canada. China? They don't have an aircraft carrier yet and they would have to get through the US Pacific Fleet before getting into Canada. A declaration of war against Canada by China would mean the US would interfere 100%. China wouldn't get a fighter past Alaska either by air or sea. Again, lets try Russia, they have fighters with tanker support. The distance they have to fly over hostile Arctic waters is vast. Again, all of this will be detected by NORAD. The US scrambles a small wave of F-22's out of Alaska, takes out the tankers and waits for the Sukhoi's to run out of fuel. The only real damage Russia or China can destroy Canada is by ICBM, but that means the end of the world.

65 is a decent number because it allows us to carry out our NORAD obligations along with sending small packs to international conflicts. We sent in a mediocre 7 CF-18's to Italy and by far exceeded NATO's expectations for our fleet size. More airframes doesn't always mean a more capable Air Force.

[Beefitarian]

Well then. Rock on! We buy 10 F-35s have 3 spares and send the other 7 to exceed NATO's expectations where and when needed. Then we have some spare change to spend on SAR.

[shitdisturber]

I'm just wondering how you expect someone...anyone...to send a sizeable fleet of fighters into Canada. China? They don't have an aircraft carrier yet and they would have to get through the US Pacific Fleet before getting into Canada.

Actually they do. Ex Soviet Navy carrier Kiev was turned over to the Ukraine who sold it at auction to a Chinese tour group who were going to "make a hotel out of it." Surprise surprise it's no longer a hotel but it has completed two rounds of sea trials and is expected to be turned over to the PLAN sometime this year.

[frosti]

I'm just wondering how you expect someone...anyone...to send a sizeable fleet of fighters into Canada. China? They don't have an aircraft carrier yet and they would have to get through the US Pacific Fleet before getting into Canada.

Actually they do. Ex Soviet Navy carrier Kiev was turned over to the Ukraine who sold it at auction to a Chinese tour group who were going to "make a hotel out of it." Surprise surprise it's no longer a hotel but it has completed two rounds of sea trials and is expected to be turned over to the PLAN sometime this year.

Like I said, they wouldn't get anywhere near Canada if war broke out.

[Colonel Sanders]

You guys are funny, thinking we're going to have a war (with bullets) with China.

There's already a war going on (with dollars) and it doesn't look like it's going very well from here.

[Beefitarian]

Go back a page. It was implied. That part got cut out of my post when it was quoted.

Once WalMart moves allmost all the money out of Canada the Chinese can just walk in. "Hey you, guy living under the abandoned F-35. Want something to eat?"

[azimuthaviation]

The US scrambles a small wave of F-22's out of Alaska, takes out the tankers and waits for the Sukhoi's to run out of fuel.

Lets hope the Russians when they come dont take that into account and plan around it.

[reality check]

I find it hard to believe some of you are still parroting on that this is a good idea.

Canada's budget watchdog says it appears the Conservative government kept two sets of books when it came to the costs of replacing Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s with 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets.

In an interview airing on CBC Radio's The House on Saturday, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page spoke out on the issue for the first time since Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report earlier this month lambasting the government and Department of National Defence officials over estimated costs of replacing Canada's fighter jets.

Page told host Evan Solomon what bothered his office was that one set of books was available inside DND, while another "for communication purposes" was presented publicly, in which he said the government was "low-balling" the numbers.

"You do get the sense there were different books being kept," he told Solomon.

In his report, Ferguson found that the costs of acquiring 65 F-35s over 20 years was closer to $25-billion, and not the $15-billion the public had been told.

Ferguson's findings supported Page's estimates of $29-billion over 30 years tabled by the spending watchdog in March 2011, a figure for which Page was heavily criticised at the time.

When asked by Solomon whether he felt vindicated by the auditor general's findings, Page answered that his office "didn't do any victory laps."

"We are doing our jobs," said Page, who was appointed by Stephen Harper in 2008 to a four-year term, which ends next year.

In an interview also airing on The House Saturday, Conservative MP James Rajotte denied the government did anything wrong.

"From my own personal point of view, we have to separate the costs between acquisition, maintenance and operation," said Rajotte.

Life-cycle costs
Rajotte, a Conservative MP who also serves as Chair of the Commons finance committee, attributes the different estimates between DND, the auditor general and the PBO in part to the fact they were "using different time periods."

"Also, it is very challenging to estimate what the operational costs of an F-35 are going to be 30 or 40 years from now," added Rajotte.

Testifying before a Commons public accounts committee on Thursday, the auditor general said "significant" items were missing from the government's estimates of the F-35s, and that cabinet would have approved the $25-billion estimate in its budget in 2008.

"What we identified was there were some significant things missing from the life-cycle costs," Ferguson told MPs on the committee.

The auditor general pointed to attrition, upgrades and the fact that these aircraft "were going to last for 36 years, not 20 years."

F-35 pricetag to soar
Page, who is now busy preparing new estimates on the full costs of acquiring F-35s, also told Solomon the pricetag could go well beyond the $25-billion estimated once the life-cycle costs are factored in.

Until now, the government has estimated the cost of each F-35 plane at $75 million. But according to Page, the government need only look south for a more "reasonable" estimate.

According to Page, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pegged the costs for all variants of the F-35 at $137-million.

And at that price, Page says the Canadian government will not be able to purchase 65 F-35s but more like 40 or 45 fighter jets.

"That's the difficult part," said Page.

"If we spend more on these planes, what does this mean for ships, what does this mean for the armed forces, and what does this mean for Defence Department sustainability going forward, which could be a huge issue?"

Page wrote to Rob Fonberg, the deputy minister of national defence, this week asking him to adopt the same pricing used by the GAO.

"We're already encouraging (DND) officials to look at the numbers coming out of the U.S.," said Page, adding his upcoming estimates would certainly "borrow on that."

"Prices are important. Costs are important."

Rajotte said the government has accepted the auditor general's findings, and that's why it is changing the process going forward.

The changes include establishing a new secretariat under the purview of Public Works and Government Services to oversee the process of replacing Canada's aging CF-18s.

[frosti]

Someone should do a cost comparison of the entire CF-18 program over the last 30 years, including EVERYTHING. I bet it comes very close to what the F35 "will" cost.

[CD]

Someone should do a cost comparison of the entire CF-18 program over the last 30 years, including EVERYTHING. I bet it comes very close to what the F35 "will" cost.

That may not be a very favourable comparison...

CF188 - 138 airframes
F35 - 65 airframes

[reality check]

Frosti. With all due respect, your days as an F35 apologist are numbered with arguments like that. It's getting a bit long in the tooth, all this posturing and faulty logic. Comparing what was (known), to what will be (unknown), is a bit on the ridiculous side given all we know about any Gov't program, armed forces or not. This program is a disaster according to pretty much everyone who speaks about it, the only people that seems lost on are those with a vested interest. As a citizen, I will be very angry if we spend this kind on money of fighters period, could care less which brand. The time for us to be throwing billions at items like this is long over when there are so many other pressing needs in this country. Good money after bad imho.

[frosti]

As a citizen, I will be very angry if we spend this kind on money of fighters period, could care less which brand.

This thread is to discuss the F-35, not whether Canada needs fighters. Feel free to move to a country that doesn't invest in it's Armed Forces and tell me how life is there. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[reality check]

Haha, too funny. You guys are all the same. 'give us our toys so we can fight (somebody) for YOUR freedom, but just don't disagree with me." Having gone through this thread a bit, I see your post is in line with the rest of your case, which is nicely summarized by your wish to separate the money we CANADIANS are spending, and what we're spending it on. Makes sense to me, or not. Now, about that door of yours

[Rockie]

I don't know enough about the plane's technical advantages to offer an opinion on it over the alternates, although the one fact it's a single engine machine is a show stopper for me given the role it will have to play in arctic sovereignty. But this is what really pisses me off:

Page, who is now busy preparing new estimates on the full costs of acquiring F-35s, also told Solomon the pricetag could go well beyond the $25-billion estimated once the life-cycle costs are factored in.

Until now, the government has estimated the cost of each F-35 plane at $75 million. But according to Page, the government need only look south for a more "reasonable" estimate.

According to Page, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pegged the costs for all variants of the F-35 at $137-million.

And at that price, Page says the Canadian government will not be able to purchase 65 F-35s but more like 40 or 45 fighter jets.

If the plane is so goddamn good why won't the government be honest about the costs? They're still lying even after getting caught red handed. They're still lying about the cost of the crime bill. They were caught misappropriating $50 million and Baird makes it seem like we're the ones who should be ashamed of ourselves for having the gall to question them on it. The primary crook in that caper Tony (see you on Westjet) Clement has subsequently been put in charge of ALL government spending.

WTF

They work for us, not the other way around, and I do not like being treated as a fool when they're spending MY money.

[frosti]

although the one fact it's a single engine machine is a show stopper for me

I don't know enough about the plane's technical advantages

Thanks for answering your own question.

[Tom H]

Anyone that thinks a single engine fighter is a good idea needs only go to the Starfighter Association website and count the number lost (including some fatals) due to bird/other ingestion.

Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over.

[Rockie]

although the one fact it's a single engine machine is a show stopper for me

I don't know enough about the plane's technical advantages

Thanks for answering your own question.

I don't need to know about the weapons, EW or stealth capabilities to know one engine + high arctic + nonexistent SAR capability = bad.

That opinion btw comes from having done it.

[frosti]

Don't care how good the tech is when it eats a bird it's all over.

How many birds are there in the Arctic flying at 30,000ft? You are the same type of people who thought that 4 engines were safer than 2 when crossing the ponds. The only people who really should be concerned are pilots, and right now the pilot trade in the CF is full of applicants. Fighter jet engine technology has come a long way since the starfighter days, some people just need to get with reality.

[Rockie]

Fighter jet engine technology has come a long way since the starfighter days, some people just need to get with reality.

I've brought a CF-18 home on one engine and it had nothing to do with birds or its inherent reliability.

[trampbike]

The whole debate about the price is really skewed by the fact that most people compare the government 16B$ estimate to the 25-30B$ PBO and AG estimates.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
Government estimates are + 9B ACQUISITION costs + 7B for 20 years of maintenance
AG and PBO estimaes are ACQUISITION costs + 30 years of maintenance + 30 years of operations. That last thing would be pretty much the same no matter which airframe is purchased. Fuel, logistics, pilot and tech salaries etc do not vary all that much from airframe to airframe.

One last thing to note: PBO cost estimates are a projection based on a $ per kg of airframe historical tendency. The JSF is developped and produced very differently from any other fighter in history (this is often an argument against it, since it presents many unknowns and risks), so it's hard to say if the $ per kg of the F35 will be an aberration or not. The PBO says in his report that this is a big unknown.

although the one fact it's a single engine machine is a show stopper for me given the role it will have to play in arctic sovereignty.

Doesn't the perfect reliability (so far!) of the PW F119 installed on the F22 reassure you somehow? The PW F135 is based on the F119 and is actually an improvement from it.
From what I understand, most of the redundancy is built-in within the engine, and the probability of failure is so low it's a risk worth taking when considering all the advantages of having only one engine.

If the plane is so goddamn good why won't the government be honest about the costs? They're still lying even after getting caught red handed. They're still lying about the cost of the crime bill. They were caught misappropriating $50 million and Baird makes it seem like we're the ones who should be ashamed of ourselves for having the gall to question them on it. The primary crook in that caper Tony (see you on Westjet) Clement has subsequently been put in charge of ALL government spending.

WTF

They work for us, not the other way around, and I do not like being treated as a fool when they're spending MY money.

Agree with you on this. This government controls the information like no others and holds the parliament and the media in such contempt it's sickening.
They should produce a cost estimate based on 30 years of operations and maintenance so people can compare it with the PBO and AG estimates. Right now we are simply not comparing the same things, so it's easy to either think someone lied or that someone commited a huge mistake.

[frosti]

Fighter jet engine technology has come a long way since the starfighter days, some people just need to get with reality.

I've brought a CF-18 home on one engine and it had nothing to do with birds or its inherent reliability.

It's easy to shut down an engine to prevent further damage to the components when you have two. Would you shut down your only engine for a oil pressure caution? I sure hope not, you'd limp that sucker back home.

[Rockie]

Oh come on. There is no such thing as a mechanical device that doesn't ever break and you are deluding yourself if you think this thing won't. I shut down my engine in the hopes of preventing further damage but it was trashed anyway because it was shedding chunks. Even though I was nowhere near anything like the high arctic I was exceedingly glad for the other engine because the one I shut down would not have gotten me home.

Hugely reliable engines quit for no reason other than the fact humans designed, built, maintain and operate them. There are also countless external factors that could turn that marvelous piece of technology into junk. These things will not be operating in central Europe or the continental US, they will be refueling to the high arctic where there is zero SAR capability.

No thanks despite Mackay's promise it won't ever quit.

[Old fella]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZYnOLRQQI

[Old Dog Flying]

OF: You beat me to it...damn!