F-35 looking more like white elephant

[trampbike]

Trampbike

Appreciate you taking a logical approach to the argument (debate?)

A little side note...I am one of those that thinks once sorted the F-35 will be a great aircraft for it's design mission. But still think that it's not the mission that Canada needs.

That said lets look at your comments:

In the end of 2006, Canada signed the MoU for the third phase of the program. There are many sound reasons for this participation (industrial benefits, technology transfer, lower pirces in the event of a JSF purchase etc).

Agree

During the last decade, DND came up with requirements for the next Canadian fighter that pretty much eliminated any contenders other than the F35.

So does that mean that it's the best for "our needs" or the spec was written so only the F-35 could meet it? Interesting question...wonder what the real answer is?

I have no idea either. We, mere mortals, don't have any way to know such thing, so I'd rather stay with what I can know: DND wrote the requirements, and they are SUPPOSED to be for the best interest of Canada. We could debate if their judgement was skewed, but it would be vague and empty arguments, so I leave it for others.

The SH and the Typhoon might have fulfilled the requirements, however it was evaluated that these 2 options were not as cost effective as the F35.

Were those competitors approached re: Their industrial benefit packages? Canadian content options? Equivalency contract options?

Not that has been published...so how do we know what the real price benefit option would have been?

Apparently they were, but nothing official has been published...

We don't.
No we don't, but I trust that many people above me do. Call me naive, but until it's clearly shown that they didn't know what they were doing, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

On the short term the SH or Typhoon might be viable options, but since DND planned on flying this next fighter for a couple of decades (maybe until UCAVs become a viable option), the F35 seemed to be the best option.

But if we don't know the answer to the quote above this one how can we make that leap in decisions?

We know how long the different production line will stay opened. We know of many upgrades that can't be retrofitted on older airframes and designs.

However, Canada's involvement in the MoU prevents a fair competition the be held.

Why? The only disadvantage is to the current program, all the cards are on the table and competitors know the economic package that needs beaten, can their aircraft meet the performance targets?

The way the procurement is done is totally different. Through the MoU, there is no fixed price, and many other variables can't be exactly quantified (that is a huge part of the argument against the F35: there are many risks). While during a competition, the offered package has to be very well quantified and fixed. Also, my understanding was that countries that signed the MoU had so many advantages buying the F35 that it would almost be non-sense for other companies to enter the competition.

Now if their economic package was as good/better and their aircraft as good/better we would have a choice and could play the hand to our benefit.

Yes, IF and IF... Apparently DND thought it was so obvious what was the right choice that they did not think pertinent to try to hold a competition, however unfair it might have ended up being. Again, I don't know enough to be able to say for sure if that was a good decision or not. I do think that even thought they were dead set on the F35, they should have held a competition, just to reduce the amount of critics. But they knew that too and still decided not to hold one. I don't have the knowledge to explain this decision.

Boeing or EADS would be at a huge disadvantage competing against the JSF. They would not be competing against LM as what would normally happen during a competition. They would be competing against the JSF program and the MoU.

Well considering the Boeing group WAS part of the JSF program and the X-32, while not winning the bid, did fairly well and has likely been polished since it seems this is a horse race that would have been worth watching. Throw in the Euro competitors and it would have been a "must watch".

Without leaving the MoU.

I don't understand what kind of competition you are talking about. The X-32 is dead, it never went further than the first stage of the JSF program.

The procurement would then be much more expensive and with WAY less benefits for Canadian industries.

But we don't know that because it was never done so the comment is frankly irrelevant.

Yes we know. According to current cost estimates of the F35A, buying 65 airplanes would cost close to a billion more through Foreign Military Sales than through the MoU. Also, the industrial benefits we could deal with LM would only be related to our little 65 airplanes instead of talking about the whole production, which should be at least 3100 aircrafts, according to the latest and less optimistic estimates.

Been fun chatting

Indeed.

My highly opinionated 2 bits

My attempt at answering bolded in the quote.

[trampbike]

With the increasing pace of technology the need for manned fighter jets will have long since passed by the 30 year point, if not by year 10.

And you know that how?
You really don't think that the UCAV option was not considered and studied? If there was a cheaper and more efficient solution, I'm sure the RCAF would be very happy to opt for such option, and then they would have the budget to finally buy enough SAR platforms or many other things that would be worth spending money on.

[trampbike]

Oh, and buy a 25 more to really piss off the other parties.

That would not piss off any other parties. It would be a good thing for them if the government did such a stupid thing.
You know who would really be pissed off? Serving RCAF members who are still waiting for FW SAR platforms and many other things that are essential and require a significant investment.

Once they are purchased, this will all go away.

You know what else goes away? Money. A lot of it.


I know you are just trolling, but I really hope you'll have more meaningful and pertinent things to say when you show up at the CFRC for your interview.

[frosti]

No, the cost should go to the Cons for screwing up the procurement process.

Oh yeah, cost increases are totally Harpers fault. It's also his fault for picking the best available aircraft for the RCAF in the first place. You can either pay the money for 5th gen aircraft to have the best capabilities or refurb 4th gens to support industry and pretend you're still in the game.

[2R]

So if the F-35 is as good as the sales guys say.Why are the Americans still getting other fighter airplanes as well ?If it can do it all.......
Why are other countries and customers of the same military industrial complex buying other fighters as well ?
What facts do the other buyers know.Facts that those who are single-minded about this single engine fighter are aware of,but they are not sharing with the uninitiated ? Facts that are not shared with the great unwashed masses of demockeries and democracies.
Who knows ?Not I.
Perhaps that is the reason why the Gerry is working on their own aircraft.
The countries that gave the world the Zero and the Spitfire are collaborating on a fighter interdiction project.
I wonder how much uncle nigels emporium or Mitsubishi would charge for a few of those
Just saying.....a

[Tom H]

Thanks for the reply Trampbike

Not as skilled on the forum as you but will try to reply similarly

So does that mean that it's the best for "our needs" or the spec was written so only the F-35 could meet it? Interesting question...wonder what the real answer is?

I have no idea either. We, mere mortals, don't have any way to know such thing, so I'd rather stay with what I can know: DND wrote the requirements, and they are SUPPOSED to be for the best interest of Canada. We could debate if their judgement was skewed, but it would be vague and empty arguments, so I leave it for others.

I've underlined the important part of the response...because it sums up the whole discussion, we don't know and as such any further discussion is speculation and based on raw trust...something that is getting harder and harder to do with ALL political machines (regardless of party).

Not that has been published...so how do we know what the real price benefit option would have been?

Apparently they were, but nothing official has been published...

We don't.
No we don't, but I trust that many people above me do. Call me naive, but until it's clearly shown that they didn't know what they were doing, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Again the important bits underlined...and they pretty much sum up the overall problem, communication.

We don't know if there have been other proposals, we don't know what the best deal would be (maybe it is the F-35, maybe it's not) and in this day and age without clear communication the auto reaction is another Cluster is coming a la' submarines and so many other things.

And that lack of communication leads to...my comment above about trust.

Which makes the rest of your responses opinion and speculation (which of course all of us are entitled to) but not fact. It would be nice if we were privy to facts and I see no reason as to why we are not.

If all the information had been clearly communicated I doubt we would be having this discussion.
So why wasn't it?

I don't understand what kind of competition you are talking about. The X-32 is dead, it never went further than the first stage of the JSF program.

The X-32 and the X-35 went through the full competition program and were the (2) designs selected for build to fly off and submission of full financial, accounting systems and accountability programs...the full meal deal including V/STOL etc.
(The Nova program "Battle of the X-Planes outlines the overall program as well as the build and fly off of the 2 designs...good program even without the current controversy, available on line)

The X-35 was selected to become the F-35 by a nose on performance and because of the extensive projected financial, accounting and accountability systems that were part of the program. It was the first program where the book keeping was part of the overall selection criteria and not just performance.

So yes there are flying X-32 Stealth/VSTOL aircraft out there that have likely improved since the selection was made.

Once again my highly opinionated 2 Bits

Thanks again fro the chat, appreciate the point of view, just can't agree with it.

[2R]

The X-35 was selected to become the F-35 by a nose on performance and because of the extensive projected financial, accounting and accountability systems that were part of the program. It was the first program where the book keeping was part of the overall selection criteria and not just performance.
.

Looks like somebodies been pissing down your back and telling you its raining.If you think that this is first aircraft ever to take operating costs into account i have a bridge in Brooklyn i could sell you cheap

[Tom H]

The X-35 was selected to become the F-35 by a nose on performance and because of the extensive projected financial, accounting and accountability systems that were part of the program. It was the first program where the book keeping was part of the overall selection criteria and not just performance.
.

Looks like somebodies been pissing down your back and telling you its raining.If you think that this is first aircraft ever to take operating costs into account i have a bridge in Brooklyn i could sell you cheap

Agreed as to operating costs...but this time the actual accounting and accountability systems for development/production were part of the competition, not just the numbers.

Mind you we can all see how that worked...lol

I'll bet Boeing is still laughing in the coffee lounge on this one.

[Mostly Harmless]

Whatever sum that Boeing paid their lobbyist to get the F-18 back onto the agenda, they were worth every penny. Rightly or wrongly, I can't help but feel that this is one very well engineered category 5 shitstorm.

[frosti]

So if the F-35 is as good as the sales guys say.Why are the Americans still getting other fighter airplanes as well ?If it can do it all.......
Why are other countries and customers of the same military industrial complex buying other fighters as well ?
What facts do the other buyers know that those who are single-minded about this single engine fighter are aware of that they are not sharing ?
Who knows ?
Perhaps that is the reason why the Gerry is working on their own aircraft.
The countries that gave the world the Zero and the Spitfire are collaborating on a fighter interdiction project.
I wonder how much uncle nigels emporium or Mitsubishi would charge for a few of those
Just saying.....a

Americans aren't getting anything other than stop-gap fighters until the F35's enter service with the Navy, Marines and Air Force. Other countries are buying what THEY need for their requirements. Also, the US won't sell the F35 to everyone...

"What facts do the other buyers know that those who are single-minded about this single engine fighter are aware of that they are not sharing ?"

Is this a sentence?

[trampbike]

Which makes the rest of your responses opinion and speculation (which of course all of us are entitled to) but not fact. It would be nice if we were privy to facts and I see no reason as to why we are not.

Many things that I wrote, including everything about the fact that a fair competition was almost impossible through the MoU, is solid information. If you'd read the AG report, you'd notice he says exactly what I said (it's actually quite the opposite, I wrote it because I read it from the AG report, and many other documents)

If all the information had been clearly communicated I doubt we would be having this discussion.
So why wasn't it?

Many of the details of the requirements are classified. I don't know and can't know exactly why.

I don't understand what kind of competition you are talking about. The X-32 is dead, it never went further than the first stage of the JSF program.

The X-32 and the X-35 went through the full competition program and were the (2) designs selected for build to fly off and submission of full financial, accounting systems and accountability programs...the full meal deal including V/STOL etc.
(The Nova program "Battle of the X-Planes outlines the overall program as well as the build and fly off of the 2 designs...good program even without the current controversy, available on line)

The X-35 was selected to become the F-35 by a nose on performance and because of the extensive projected financial, accounting and accountability systems that were part of the program. It was the first program where the book keeping was part of the overall selection criteria and not just performance.

So yes there are flying X-32 Stealth/VSTOL aircraft out there that have likely improved since the selection was made.

I knew all that about the first phase of the JSF. You'll be sad to learn thought that the X-32 is really dead. Boeing went full speed ahead with UAV and UCAV development, they dropped the idea of developing a new manned fighter. They continue to improve old design (F15E and F18F-G)

Once again my highly opinionated 2 Bits

Thanks again fro the chat, appreciate the point of view, just can't agree with it.

We'll find a way

Again, my attemps at response bolded in the quote.

So if the F-35 is as good as the sales guys say.Why are the Americans still getting other fighter airplanes as well ?If it can do it all.......
Why are other countries and customers of the same military industrial complex buying other fighters as well ?

What exactly are you talking about? If you try to be a bit less vague, maybe I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.

[Tom H]

Trampbike

Many things that I wrote, including everything about the fact that a fair competition was almost impossible through the MoU, is solid information. If you'd read the AG report, you'd notice he says exactly what I said (it's actually quite the opposite, I wrote it because I read it from the AG report, and many other documents)

While I agree with most of what the auditor wrote you have hit the one area that I disagree with him (and you) on.

To me it's like saying you've got a quote on a new car so you have to stop shopping.

I knew all that about the first phase of the JSF. You'll be sad to learn thought that the X-32 is really dead. Boeing went full speed ahead with UAV and UCAV development, they dropped the idea of developing a new manned fighter. They continue to improve old design (F15E and F18F-G)

Not according to a number of articles I've read (sorry no link, I'm still a hard copy guy in most ways).

The wing has been changed, it ain't as ugly (still think that's why it lost) and I understand it has not been flown for some time...but it is there. In my opinion it's likely been a development hack leading to the NG 6 proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Ge..._Air_Dominanceng

In my opinion...
Boeing bet LM would hit a wall and did the F-18 upgrading to snag some easy sales.
But has kept X-32 on life support.

Once again my highly opinionated 2 Bits

Thanks

[2R]

So if the F-35 is as good as the sales guys say.Why are the Americans still getting other fighter airplanes as well ?If it can do it all.......
Why are other countries and customers of the same military industrial complex buying other fighters as well ?

What exactly are you talking about? If you try to be a bit less vague, maybe I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.[/quote]

Sorry,i was being presumptious.Making presumptions that everyone knew about other NATO fighter projects that are now public knowledge.It is difficult to be precise and non-vague without divulging information on a public forum that may be useful to an enemy.So please forgive me if i look stupid about some things as i would not want to give an advantage to our enemies.

I do not have to work too hard at being stupid.It comes naturally to me

[Tom H]

Interesting read

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

[frosti]

Interesting read

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

[Rockie]

The cost of these things has doubled according to the American government (who should know...right?), and that DOES NOT include pilots, fuel, shoe laces and boot leather. It is causing them all kinds of heartburn based on experience with the F-22 and B2 cost overruns.

But no worries says Peter Mackay. Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f ... 2144.story

[azimuthaviation]

The cost of these things has doubled according to the American government (who should know...right?), and that DOES NOT include pilots, fuel, shoe laces and boot leather. It is causing them all kinds of heartburn based on experience with the F-22 and B2 cost overruns.

But no worries says Peter Mackay. Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f ... 2144.story

Beaten Venus in any dogfights lately?

[trampbike]

Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

We don't have to pay for rising development costs. The US are paying for that,
We'll pay 551M USD over a 40 years period for the third phase of the MoU, and that's it.

[Guido]

Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

We don't have to pay for rising development costs. The US are paying for that,
We'll pay 551M USD over a 40 years period for the third phase of the MoU, and that's it.

[citation needed]

[Rockie]

Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

We don't have to pay for rising development costs.

That's what I said. Almost a direct quote from the land of wishful thinking.

[iflyforpie]

Like I said before, somebody is using the old Jedi mind trick...

[trampbike]

Ours are apparently being built in a different dimension and haven't gotten any more expensive.

We don't have to pay for rising development costs.

That's what I said. Almost a direct quote from the land of wishful thinking.

[citation needed]

Did you guys read the MoU? That's where I found the information. Where did you get yours?

[2R]

[quote="Tom H"

I'll bet Boeing is still laughing in the coffee lounge on this one.[/quote]


Starting to look like a classic car sales 'BAIT AND SWITCH' sales trick.

Eventually they will sell Canada some twin engine F-22's without the eightrack stereo's as soon as the cost of the F-35's hit the tipping point where the cost of the F-22 is within reach and might seem like a bargain.Then everyone will be happy

[Beefitarian]

and that DOES NOT include pilots, fuel, shoe laces and boot leather.

Why would it include that stuff? Separate issue since even if they received free planes that other stuff still has to be purchased.

Or were you trying to imply they need to have Boeing shoe laces to fly the F-35?

[Lost Lake]

I still don't understand why we need any fighters. Keep the tudors going for air shows. Spend some on SAR and Maritime Patrol, put the rest of the cash towards the deficit.