The F-35 is not dead

[teacher]

I walked away from the last thread because of the tone and drift it took. On a factual basis are these numbers accurate for the other aircraft types? I must say I sill agree that saying the costs have quadrupled when comparing the released purchase price with a 42 year life cycle but I digress.

The F-35 fighter jet is not dead.

Fevered reports to the contrary, there is every chance that when a review of the options is probably completed by Public Works Canada by next fall, the F-35 stealth fighter may still be at the top of the shopping list.

Following the F-35 fracas from Egypt, where truly momentous political events are being debated, the hysteria in Canada over the F-35 seems rather quaint. Most of what critics have written and said about the Joint Strike Fighter has been just as confusing and misleading as what the Harper government has had to say about it since a Liberal government got Canada involved in the project.

Although already nearly 15 years old, Boeing's fourth generation F-18 Super Hornet is the only serious rival to Lockheed Martin's fifth generation F-35 Lightning. But as argued by the National Post's John Ivison, the clear leader on the F-35 story for months, the Super Hornet has far less of a cost advantage than the JSF's critics have led the public to believe. In fact if Canada were to buy the two-seat electronic warfare variant of the Super Hornet or a mix of that model and the attack version, it might not be cheaper at all.

The "life cycle costs" of the F-35 - development, acquisition, sustainment, operations, attrition and disposal, including fuel and air and ground crew - have been described in Canada in apocalyptic terms. Here, the analogy to a car purchase is apt. When you buy a car for $30,000, you're paying for the development of that car, a profit for those making it, and for the car itself. Few people budget for the fuel, maintenance or insurance costs over the vehicle's "life cycle." But they know keeping the car on the road for 10 years will cost roughly double the purchase price. Since we buy military equipment for longer life cycles - in this case 42 years from 2010, although the international standard for measuring this has usually been 20 years - those costs increase in step. Hence misleading headlines such as that the "F-35 costs five times original estimates."

Nor have fair cost comparisons been done with other big government-funded enterprises such as the CBC, which as Sun Media has noted, will have cost taxpayers more by 2052 than whatever new fighter jets Canada eventually purchases.

Also lost in the hullabaloo over life cycle costs was that number crunching by KPMG that was presented to Parliament last week indicated that cost estimates prepared several years ago by National Defence were accurate.

If opponents of the F-35 had examined the cost of the alternatives - as they should have and as the government should have - they would have long ago realized that there are no "cheap" options. The four other frequently mentioned contenders have list prices equal to or greater than the F-35 - and none of them is classified as a "stealth" aircraft. According the U.S. Department of Defense, Boeing's Super Hornet costs $88 million per aircraft, which is identical to KPMG's estimate for a F-35. According to Australian reports, the latest batch of Super Hornets that Canberra may buy will cost more than $100 million each.

Britain's Ministry of Defence lists the Eurofighter Typhoon at $115 million per aircraft. France's Rafale costs from $80 to $120 million each depending on the model. Sweden's Gripen E was just purchased by the Swiss air force for $100 million per plane.

It is not hard to find critics of the F-35 outside Canada. There have been doubts about its stealth technologies, its computer coding, assembly line delays and cost overruns. However, only in Canada has the debate over the potential purchase of 65 fighters been so out of whack.

With far less noise, Australia, which still intends to acquire as many as 100 F-35s, has purchased a couple of dozen Super Hornets to make up for F-35 delays and is considering buying a couple of dozen more.

The difference in Oz, which has a smaller economy than Canada's, is that there has long been all-party and media maturity about defence procurement issues. Nor has there been much bombast over F-35 costs in tiny Norway, Denmark or Singapore, just gritty acceptance that this has become the cost of doing national defence.

The frenzy over the F-35 is reminiscent of the attention that Afghan torture allegations got several years ago. Remember those charges that Canadian soldiers were complicit in war crimes? The Red Cross, which is responsible for such matters, never found evidence to warrant even beginning an investigation. But critics have never set the record straight, nor will they.

Critics had insisted that Canada's allegedly criminal behaviour in Afghanistan would cost the Tories dearly at the polls. As it turned out, this issue only excited Parliament Hill. Through two federal election campaigns the alleged mistreatment of Afghan detainees on Canada's watch was never raised by voters.

There are similarly dire predictions today about the political consequences that will result from how the government has handled the F-35 file. Well, good luck with that.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/story_pri ... 5&sponsor=

[Rockie]

Did they put another engine on it yet?

[frosti]

That didn't take long. First reply and we are already re-hashing the same ol' garbage.

[Rockie]

Relax...it was a joke.

[Diadem]

Something I don't understand from those who want think the F-35 is too expensive and want to buy Super Hornets instead is what they think the cost of purchasing another replacement fighter in 20 years will be. Even if they are cheaper in the short term, which doesn't appear to be the case from the article posted above, they won't last nearly as long as the F-35. Sure, I could buy a $20000 car instead of one for $30000, but if the one that costs $20000 lasts half as long, I'm going to end up spending another $20000 down the road. The US Navy is taking the Super Hornet out of service in 2017, so if we still have them well into the 2030s that would be like having upgraded F-5s in the RCAF today. Any of the aircraft we purchase is going to cost money year-over-year, so why not get the one that will last the longest without becoming obsolete? It seems to me that it's the cheaper option in the long run.

[DonutHole]

to me, the problem is two fold, but surprisingly cost is not an issue

First off, Is this edsel even going to work? It's been such a rocky road of development it's a question worth examining. Will it do what it says? How can we be sure it will? There is nobody here that can answer this with any degree of certainty because the production has not been completed, and that is when all of the REAL bugs come to light, when the things actually become operational. My fear is that the zealots that support this thing do not realize that the actual development of the platform isn't going on right now, it will be going on for the first ten years of operation and probably even longer as the technologies it is offered with at the start become obsolete.

Which leads me to number two, how do we know if this thing meets our needs? I mean, communism looks good on paper but does it work in practice? Until these things are operationally tested they are an unknown quantity, no matter how loudly the supporters chest thump about its perfect suitability and reliability... they can't know this because it has not been proven.

Now, the cost, for me isn't an issue. It is in reality a token purchase, I think we should buy 500 of the things if we actually want to take the rhetoric of an effective military and turn it into a reality, sixty isn't going to do it. But, why not the f22? Why not something else that is more expensive and better? the thing is, we don't know if this is the best tool for the job, and we won't know until it has actually been used for its intended purpose. the edsel was going to revolutionize automobiles, and I'm hearing the same hype around this fighter.

Now, frosti is complaining about rehasing the same old tired arguments, this thread, in its entirety is more of the same. There is nothing new to say about this, you're either gonna love it or hate it. I'm reserving my judgment until these things are proven, and I hope that the right decision is made, because if this thing isn't the golden freaking goose the warmongers are making it out to be then they've effectively screwed the military into an edsel when they should have had a rolls royce.

[tailgunner]

Donut,
The F 22 production line is closed. Japan also tried to buy some and the US said no. Even the USAF would find it nearly impossible to get more, the costs of reestablishing the production line would be huge.

[Mig29]

What's wrong with some Euro options? Or are neighbors down south just better at lobbying our government? Half of our national airline is comprised of Airbuses

[North Shore]

Teach, it's not dead...it's just resting!

[Mach1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c

[Spokes]

to me, the problem is two fold, but surprisingly cost is not an issue

...

Which leads me to number two, how do we know if this thing meets our needs? I mean, communism looks good on paper but does it work in practice? Until these things are operationally tested they are an unknown quantity, no matter how loudly the supporters chest thump about its perfect suitability and reliability... they can't know this because it has not been proven.

...

The same could be said of any aircraft. This is not an argument for or agains the F35 so much as an argument for/against even having a fighter/bomber in our airforce.

[ragbagflyer]

I take issue with any claim that a piece of current technology will be effective in 40 years. It totally ignores the accelerating rate of technological advances. Manned fighters in 40 years? I don't think so. F-35 technology could be replicated in somebodies garage by that point.

[frosti]

I take issue with any claim that a piece of current technology will be effective in 40 years. It totally ignores the accelerating rate of technological advances. Manned fighters in 40 years? I don't think so. F-35 technology could be replicated in somebodies garage by that point.

I want to see you build an F-14 in your garage, its been 43 years since it was first flown. So go on, build!

[ragbagflyer]

I want to see you build an F-14 in your garage, its been 43 years since it was first flown. So go on, build!

A classic but inherently flawed argument. We're talking about an increase in the rate of technological change. For example, ount from 1 to 31 in a linear fashion and you end up at 31. Start at 1 and double it 30 times and you end up at a billion.

Also, there's probably quite a few people on this forum (AME's, engineers), that given a set up plans and an engine could actually replicate an F-4.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the last 40 years will be predictor of the next 40.

[Colonel Sanders]

Not sure anyone here is aware that the tiny nation
of Israel stole the plans to the Mirage fighter and
built their own version.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/co ... overt.html

I really wish that Canada was half as capable.

[Rockie]

I really wish that Canada was half as capable.

I'm sure we would be if we were surrounded by nations continually trying to kill us. Hardly a fair comparison. Besides, you wouldn't be willing to pay the taxes that it takes.

[esp803]

Start at 1 and double it 30 times and you end up at a billion.

You are of course assuming that technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate, I do not think it will. I would expect it to take a more serpentine curve shape, I suspect we are hovering around the peak climb give or take a hundred years.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the last 40 years will be predictor of the next 40.

I do agree with this, who would have thought Pink Floyd would have led to Justin Bieber...

I want to see you build an F-14 in your garage, its been 43 years since it was first flown. So go on, build!

I will pitch for gas, assuming of course it can take-off form YMA...

I say go Sukhoi, I am basing this decision purely on looks, and the fact that an SU-27 gives me a hard on, thus the PAK must be that much better!

E

[azimuthaviation]

Not sure anyone here is aware that the tiny nation
of Israel

Israel is not that tiny compared to Canada and the US, in quality in if not quantity. Jews make 1.7% of the US population but hold 35% of the nobel prizes awarded to the US, as well as 33% of supreme court justices and 50% of Harvard graduates. In Canada the proportion of Jewish population is even lower, less than a percentage but hold an equally disproportionate representation in fields that require intelligence to excell in. I calculate about one Jew is worth twenty to twenty-five of the white anglo saxon christians who make up the majority of Canada and the US so using that formula, Israel is not smaller than USA or Canada and we seem to be observing that.

I really wish that Canada was half as capable.

Haha, who among you thinks he is??

[Diadem]

I take issue with any claim that a piece of current technology will be effective in 40 years. It totally ignores the accelerating rate of technological advances. Manned fighters in 40 years? I don't think so. F-35 technology could be replicated in somebodies garage by that point.

But by that logic, a fourth generation fighter such as the Super Hornet would be even more outdated. I don't think we'll have manned fighters in 40 years either, but in the meantime wouldn't it make sense to get the technology that lasts the longest? I'm quite sure the pilots who took part in the operations in Kosovo and Libya are glad they had the F-18 rather than a Starfighter.

[xysn]

It would be interesting to find out how accurate estimates are. For example - how much did the CF-188 cost to fly as compared to how much it was predicted to cost to fly?

Super Hornet costs at least are based on people who have flown them. The F-35 costs are educated guesses.

Also the US may buy fewer F-35s, especially if they go over this "fiscal cliff" - making the acquisition cost go up for everybody ...