Canada says F-35s cost $14 B; Norway says they cost $40 B


darkbeaver
Republican
#61
New fighter jets can hardly be used against the enemy within.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post

Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase: source

Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase: source | canada.com


was this posted yet?

I believe you have a first. Now the air force will have to look for some other useless expensive toy.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#63
I wonder what the price tag would be on a $20,000 automobile, if you had to
factor in, in advance, all costs that might be incurred in its 20yr lifespan from
insurance to repairs to fuel and regular maintenance, to its ultimate recycle fee?

Would that $20,000 car then be priced at $120,000? Is that what we're seeing here?
 
tay
#64
What you are seeing here is that the Harperites didn't reveal the total cost of the F35 while other countries did and Canada's number was so out of alignment something had to be wrong. All the competitors include future cost estimates. These costs are decided by what is covered 'under warranty' and expected 'lifetime' of individual parts. For example, the landing gear may be rated for 500 landings and then have to be replaced at an anticipated cost of $1,000,000.00 or whatever it is. Brakes may be okay for 20 landings then need replacing at what ever that cost is.

It was also a no-competition bid. Well why not, it's the taxpayers money. Do a backread on this and you will see there are many other options and many other countries who are decrying the cost over-runs of the F35..........



What to do now? How about a real competition where we test all the contenders against realistic, Canadian requirements? I'm sure Harper can find the blueprint left by Pierre Trudeau when his government selected the CF-18. It worked brilliantly last time. It'll work again.

Super Hornet... Dassault Rafale... Eurofighter Typhoon... Sukhoi 37... take your pick. My guess is that Harper will try to throw a bit of oil on the troubled waters and go for the American option, the updated Hornet perhaps with some of the electronics suite envisioned for the F-35.

Somebody - or bodies - at Lockheed is going to be having a giant, brown hemorrhage tonight over this. Canada might just be the nudge that other foreign customers need to follow suit. Watch... and learn.


The Disaffected Lib: The Legitimacy of the Harper Majority is No Longer In Question. It's Over, Finished. (external - login to view)
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+3
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

What you are seeing here is that the Harperites didn't reveal the total cost of the F35 while other countries did and Canada's number was so out of alignment something had to be wrong. All the competitors include future cost estimates. These costs are decided by what is covered 'under warranty' and expected 'lifetime' of individual parts. For example, the landing gear may be rated for 500 landings and then have to be replaced at an anticipated cost of $1,000,000.00 or whatever it is. Brakes may be okay for 20 landings then need replacing at what ever that cost is.
It was also a no-competition bid. Well why not, it's the taxpayers money. Do a backread on this and you will see there are many other options and many other countries who are decrying the cost over-runs of the F35..........
What to do now? How about a real competition where we test all the contenders against realistic, Canadian requirements? I'm sure Harper can find the blueprint left by Pierre Trudeau when his government selected the CF-18. It worked brilliantly last time. It'll work again.
Super Hornet... Dassault Rafale... Eurofighter Typhoon... Sukhoi 37... take your pick. My guess is that Harper will try to throw a bit of oil on the troubled waters and go for the American option, the updated Hornet perhaps with some of the electronics suite envisioned for the F-35.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
One of the problems with being among the first group to select the F-35 is that the F-35 is
no longer the best of the bunch. Of the aircraft mentioned above, the F-35 is now the slowest
of the lot. I've always thought the Super Hornet was the best for Canada. We are already flying
Hornets and a lot of parts are going to be interchangeable. Another positive thing is that buying
an aircraft designed to land on a carrier is going to get us a very strong undercarriage and wing.
Another positive point is that the Hornet has twin engines......A good thing to have when flying
up north where airports are few and far between.
Last edited by #juan; Dec 9th, 2012 at 01:21 PM..
 
Liberalman
#66
Conservatives love to spend other people's money
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Conservatives love to spend other people's money

No worse than the rest of the bandits! What did those Liberals catch you doing? (Hope it wasn't around a sheep pen)-
 
Omicron
+1
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Norway is buying the planes with engines. Seriously though remember when
we got the good deal on those subs from Britain, they still don't work. The only
good sub we have is in the Edmonton Mall. Canada never gets a good deal we
get a cheap deal and our military pays the price. Norway buys what is needed
and it costs more to buy the right stuff in the first place.

Is there another thread dealing specifically with the subs? This is an issue that's urked me for a long time, given that the Brits themselves were straitforward enough about why those four subs were docked, yet Canada figured it could "fix them up". It's like many construction-type issues, where half the time it's cheaper to just scrap everything and build something new than it is to do a fix-up project.

But there a tie-in between the subs and the F-35's, and yes, it has to do with boondoggles. Sometimes it's almost like the reason Canada boondoggles is because the US has said via diplomatic channels that it does *not* want to see a potential threat from the north - that Washington has northern protection well in hand - such that Canada will be doing itself a favour to bungle things in order to save Uncle Sam the hassle of having to subvert anything that could become a threat from a sovereign nation.

Given the geography combined with global warming, Canada does not need a bunch of F-35's with no operational subs.

It needs a handlful of F-22's for chasing off Russian air-badgers, a big pile of drones for aerial coastal and northern patrol, and a fist of really good, quiet seaker-subs for sneak-patrol in expanding northern waters, opening up because of climate change.

And we need frigates. If the drones see someone smuggling people in, we send in frigates, round them up, and send them back.

If the drones see someone smuggling drugs, we send in some CF-18's and blow them to smitherenes... although I supposed that's where a handful of F-35's might come in handy, but I'm pretty sure that CF-18's could handle obliteration of drug-smugglers... unless the problem is that drug-smugglers are getting good at using radar to detect an incoming attack.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#69
What Canada needs very bad is Heavy Office Cleaning Eguipment. Carpet beaters and scrubbers, sub-carpet floor scrapers, closet evacuation pumps, skeleton recovery units and WMD Account Audit tanks. We don't need no fracking espensive junk to play world conquest with. That game is over already except the bleeding and burning. Any contracts signed now can't possibly deliver in time to engage the Russians or Chinese or Syrians in the up coming short war. Wait awhile and we can clean up on surplus stuff.


Every F-22 needs twenty or more pilots during it's service life, according to the mysterious pilot breakdowns.
 
Omicron
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We don't need no fracking espensive junk to play world conquest with. That game is over already except the bleeding and burning. Any contracts signed now can't possibly deliver in time to engage the Russians or Chinese or Syrians in the up coming short war. Wait awhile and we can clean up on surplus stuff.


Every F-22 needs twenty or more pilots during it's service life, according to the mysterious pilot breakdowns.

Why... do F-22's drive pilots crazy? Canada need *something* to run off Russians who make a systematic game out of seeing how far they can push into northern airspace before being chased off.

In any case, yes, the Cold War is over, but that doesn't mean an end-of-all-problems. Now Canada is looking at a new situation... what would be a good anacronym for Economic Globalization combined with Global Warming?

There are people-smugglers from India and China sneaking folks into Canada to end up as prostitutes and sweatshop workers because their illegal status means they can't ask RCMP for protection, plus Canada's long, empty coastline makes it so easy to smuggle drugs through that it's an old joke how Vancouver has the highest rate of heroin addiction in North America... it's so cheap and easy to get.

Drones are cheap, and are not made for engaging Russia, China nor Syria in face-front war. They are for patrol, and that's what Canada needs... not just to watch for drug and people smugglers, but to watch for guerrilla resource extractors sneaking around the northern archiapeligo in a way they never could before the ice cap started melting.

F-35's and the like are for joint, NATO-style operations, which is not making so much sense these days. Last time anything like that was tried was Yugoslavia, and it did *not* work out in any way called satisfactory.

But that doesn't change the fact that, in the context of global warming with economic globalization, Canada *does* need some better ways to patrol her borders and to enforce claim to the northern territories, which are far more vast than most southern Canadians can understand... and drones give good bang for the buck...

But I still think Canada needs better sneaker-sub patrol of the waters between all those northern archiapeligo islands.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Doesn't matter anymore. The purchase has been canceled. This is what good government does, change with changing data rather than sticking with a bad plan because it iis their plan.

I confess, I'm impressed with this action... especially in view of the fact that as a majority government, technically, they didn't have to.

Quote:

Now if we could just convince them to look after the more important purchases such as the Sea King replacements that should have been done twenty years ago.

Good point.
 
EagleSmack
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post


But there a tie-in between the subs and the F-35's, and yes, it has to do with boondoggles. Sometimes it's almost like the reason Canada boondoggles is because the US has said via diplomatic channels that it does *not* want to see a potential threat from the north

.

What threat? LMAO

Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post


F-35's and the like are for joint, NATO-style operations, which is not making so much sense these days. Last time anything like that was tried was Yugoslavia, and it did *not* work out in any way called satisfactory.
.

Does Libya and Afghanistan ring a bell at all?

Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post


It needs a handlful of F-22's for chasing off Russian air-badgers,

What do you need F-22s for chasing off a Cold War Era plane?
 
petros
#72
The CF-18 did a great job levelling Libya
 
EagleSmack
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The CF-18 did a great job levelling Libya

He must have been in the bunker during that NATO moment.
 
Omicron
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

What threat? LMAO

Oh, there's none there now, but how would you feel if Canada decided to do something with all that Plutonium from the Candus?

Of course, having an atomic weapon is nothing without a delivery system, and hercs could non-chalantly fly over Seattle or Detroit or Chicago or Boston or Philadelphia or New York or Mineapolis before anyone knew what they were up to...

So, I reitterate... are you *sure* the reason Canada keeps boondoggling military purchases isn't because they're under pressure from Washington to never become a real threat?

Quote:


Does Libya and Afghanistan ring a bell at all?

Oh yeah... Libya... *sigh*...

But Afghanistan ... that wasn't really NATO... and the CF-18's didn't go there.

Quote:


What do you need F-22s for chasing off a Cold War Era plane?

No more so than an F-35 then... eh?

In any case, it's not that hard to imagine. The Canadian ambassador to Washington gets called in, and is told:

US: "You must not become in any way a viable threat to the US of A."

CA: "But we have to spend enough on defense to justify our existence as a sovereign nation."

US: "Well, the Brits have four fixer-upper non-nuclear non-missile subs sitting on mothballs... why don't you see what you can do with those... and Lockheed Martin is over budget on the F-35's, so why don't you pick up a handful."

CA: "Hmm... well... the subs should be no problem, unless they catch fire during the Atlantic crossing, but the Privy Council will need time to contact their brokers in Zurich to up their holdings in Lockheed, plus we might have trouble convincing Canadians they actually need F-35's."

US: "That's not our problem... just make sure you don't do anything that could translate into a potential threat against America, or you'll be castrated so quickly you'll feel like the Avro Arrow affair was a pleasant prelude to the prom."
Last edited by Omicron; Dec 10th, 2012 at 04:57 PM..
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

Why... do F-22's drive pilots crazy? Canada need *something* to run off Russians who make a systematic game out of seeing how far they can push into northern airspace before being chased off.
In any case, yes, the Cold War is over, but that doesn't mean an end-of-all-problems. Now Canada is looking at a new situation... what would be a good anacronym for Economic Globalization combined with Global Warming?
There are people-smugglers from India and China sneaking folks into Canada to end up as prostitutes and sweatshop workers because their illegal status means they can't ask RCMP for protection, plus Canada's long, empty coastline makes it so easy to smuggle drugs through that it's an old joke how Vancouver has the highest rate of heroin addiction in North America... it's so cheap and easy to get.
Drones are cheap, and are not made for engaging Russia, China nor Syria in face-front war. They are for patrol, and that's what Canada needs... not just to watch for drug and people smugglers, but to watch for guerrilla resource extractors sneaking around the northern archiapeligo in a way they never could before the ice cap started melting.
F-35's and the like are for joint, NATO-style operations, which is not making so much sense these days. Last time anything like that was tried was Yugoslavia, and it did *not* work out in any way called satisfactory.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Well sir since you obviously have no idea about how drugs and slaves are transported from there to here I will educate you a tiny bit. You want us to buy these expensive weapons from the same people who own the drug and slave businesses. Examine the heroine business since we democratized Afghanistan. You might add organ smuggling to the list of wealthy criminal enterprise as well. Like I suggested Office Cleaning Equipment.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#76
Big boys and their toys. They just don't know how to play nice.
 
EagleSmack
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

Oh, there's none there now, but how would you feel if Canada decided to do something with all that Plutonium from the Candus?

Like what? Build a nuke? lol

Quote:

Of course, having an atomic weapon is nothing without a delivery system, and hercs could non-chalantly fly over Seattle or Detroit or Chicago or Boston or Philadelphia or New York or Mineapolis before anyone knew what they were up to...

Oh please... put down the KY

Quote:

So, I reitterate... are you *sure* the reason Canada keeps boondoggling military purchases isn't because they're under pressure from Washington to never become a real threat?

100%

Quote:

Oh yeah... Libya... *sigh*...

But Afghanistan ... that wasn't really NATO... and the CF-18's didn't go there.

It wasn't? Check again

Quote:

No more so than an F-35 then... eh?

Canada helped design and build the F-35

Quote:

In any case, it's not that hard to imagine. The Canadian ambassador to Washington gets called in, and is told:

US: "You must not become in any way a viable threat to the US of A."

CA: "But we have to spend enough on defense to justify our existence as a sovereign nation."

US: "Well, the Brits have four fixer-upper non-nuclear non-missile subs sitting on mothballs... why don't you see what you can do with those... and Lockheed Martin is over budget on the F-35's, so why don't you pick up a handful."

CA: "Hmm... well... the subs should be no problem, unless they catch fire during the Atlantic crossing, but the Privy Council will need time to contact their brokers in Zurich to up their holdings in Lockheed, plus we might have trouble convincing Canadians they actually need F-35's."

US: "That's not our problem... just make sure you don't do anything that could translate into a potential threat against America, or you'll be castrated so quickly you'll feel like the Avro Arrow affair was a pleasant prelude to the prom."

You do have an imagination I'll give you that.
 
Omicron
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Like what? Build a nuke? lol

It's not that hard you know. All you need is the fissile material, good metalurgists, good chemists, and good electricians, all three of which Canada has. In 1966 a study was done of the potential of all non-nuclear nations to go nuclear if they wanted to, and Canada topped the list.

Quote:

Oh please... put down the KY

Is that what you call Kentuky Burbon?

Quote:

It wasn't? Check again

Canada went to Afghanistan as part of a five nation coalition pulled together by Bush Jr. as the reaction to 9/11.

Quote:

Canada helped design and build the F-35

As did, technically, every other nation promising to buy some... but design decisions are/were made via a vote according to how many F-35s each nation had promised to buy (basically one vote per F-35), and since the US announced it would buy more F-35s than all other nations combined, it gave the US total control over the design decisions.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#79

 
darkbeaver
Republican
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

It's not that hard you know. All you need is the fissile material, good metalurgists, good chemists, and good electricians, all three of which Canada has. In 1966 a study was done of the potential of all non-nuclear nations to go nuclear if they wanted to, and Canada topped the list.

It's a very good thing we didn't develope them in 1966, cus we would have been democratized in 1967.
 
Omicron
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

It's a very good thing we didn't develope them in 1966, cus we would have been democratized in 1967.

Actually, Canada had the ability to build "the things" after WW-II. It was one of three countries with "the secret", the other two being Uncle Sam and the UK.

Those three had it because: 1) The Manhatten Project was started in England, but they had to get it away from bombing, 2) The US offered to host it, and when dawned the potential, offered to pay for it, 3) Canada was the only allied source of mineable uranium.

At first England and Uncle Sam didn't want to tell Canada what they wanted the uranium for, but Canada's PM was Right Honerable crazy-King... the PM who'd consult the spirit of his dead mother on affairs of state, and she told him the uranium was wanted for a higher purpose... or maybe it was just those physicists from UofT mentioning in more than just an offhand way that if the allies wanted *that* much uranium, there could be only *one* thing they were up to.

So... although the US offered to pay for roads and mines in northern Saskatchewan to dig the stuff, King said, "No... we'll build the roads and mine it and we will deliver it to you at the border, but you *are* going to let us in on what you're up to, because we think we already know!"

And so at the end of WW-II Canada was one of three with the secret of the atomic bomb, caught between Uncle Sam arming up with nukes on one side, and Great Mother Britian (or Evil Step-Mother Britian if you're Quebequois) on the other side, also arming up with nukes, and so Ottawa chose to keep her Royal Canadian *** out of it, focusing instead on peaceful applications, like development of the Candu reactor... still probably the safest in the world... able to run on non-enriched uranium as long as one uses heavy water as the coolant... the only problem being that it produces lots of plutonium as the waste product, which means if Canada were to sell Candus to a non-signature of the Non-Proliferation Treaty like India then India would have an easy supply of plutonium and... oops...

Anyway, it's been estimated that under extreme duress and given that Canada has the good metalurgists (for shaping the plutonium hemispheres), and the good electricians (for making accuratly timed charge triggers), and the good explosives-chemists (for the charges required to compress the hemisphers into critical mass), then theoretically, if pushed, could have a fat-boy style bomb in a week...

Of course, strategists would say that it would be wize and prudent for Canada to have all the parts for a plutonium bomb ready-made, sitting in secret warehouses, such that if it were necessary to build a bomb then it could be put together in a day, but seriously planet earth... Canada's just way too nice and all for the UN to ever think about doing something so sneaky as that.
 
tay
+1
#82
Why Not Buy the Chinese Version Just Like Wal-Mart Does? (external - login to view)


A confidential Pentagon report leaked to the Washington Post (external - login to view) accuses hackers of stealing the designs of many of America's most advanced weapons systems.


Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4 trillion. The 2007 hack of that project (external - login to view)was reported previously.

The confidential list of compromised weapons system designs and technologies represents the clearest look at what the Chinese are suspected of targeting. When the list was read to independent defense experts, they said they were shocked by the extent of the cyber-espionage and the potential for compromising U.S. defenses.


“That’s staggering,” said Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute, a think tank that focuses on Asia security issues. “These are all very critical weapons systems, critical to our national security. When I hear this in totality, it’s breathtaking.”

The experts said the cybertheft creates three major problems. First, access to advanced U.S. designs gives China an immediate operational edge that could be exploited in a conflict. Second, it accelerates China’s acquisition of advanced military technology and saves billions in development costs. And third, the U.S. designs can be used to benefit China’s own defense industry. There are long-standing suspicions that China’s theft of designs for the F-35 fighter allowed Beijing to develop its version much faster.

So here's the deal, at least for Canada. The justification for the F-35's sky high price tag is the airplane's, top secret, ultra high-tech electronic wizardry and limited stealth. Take that key advantage away and you're left with a pretty mediocre warplane with marginal performance in all the traditional areas that make a fighter great - speed, climb rate, roll and turn rate, range and payload. Because all three versions of the F-35 are based on the bloated, short take off and vertical landing design for the U.S. Marines, it's a single-engine aircraft that is incapable of supercruise.

The cost of this "way beyond state of the art" technology is supposed to be spread among the select group of nations allowed to buy the F-35 except that China, the country the F-35 is intended to target, helped itself to club privileges when no one was looking. And they aren't kicking in a dime toward the shared costs either.

Worse yet, the Chinese knock-off doesn't have the single-engine limitation of the F-35. And it could be operational at around the same time as the F-35 comes into service. And it's bound to be a lot cheaper. And did I mention theirs has twin engines?








Stephen Harper is still intent on saddling the RCAF with the F-35 light attack bomber. The so-called "reset button" that his government supposedly pushed to launch a full-blown fighter competition is being dismissed by some of Lockheed's competitors as a farce.

Here's the thing. There won't be a valid competition without a fly-off that involves getting all the competitors up to Cold Lake to see how they each perform in various mission scenarios and against each other. That's not about to happen - mainly because the F-35 probably wouldn't do terribly well. That's mainly because it's not a fighter but a light attack bomber. Just ask Paul Metz (external - login to view).

Metz was the lead test pilot for Northrop's YF-23 stealth fighter that lost to rival Lockheed's YF-22 Raptor in the American air force competition to become that country's air superiority fighter. Fortunately for Metz, once the Northrop offering was knocked out of the running, Lockheed chose him to be its chief test pilot for the F-22.

Metz was interviewed - way back in 1998 kids (when you were still using fake ID to buy beer) - about what made the F-22 such a formidable fighter. His explanation also reveals why the F-35 isn't much of a fighter.

Unlike its competition, the F-35is not supercruise capable.It is capable of supersonic flight in afterburner but at the penalty of massive fuel consumption which greatly limits its range. That's a big deficiency for the interceptor mission. The F-35 also does not have thrust vectoring. It already has a weight problem that has caused designers to remove vital safety equipment. It is single-engine which leaves it vulnerable to ground fire, especially from shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles. This vulnerability coupled with fuel and weapon limitations leaves it a poor choice for the sort of ground support missions we flew in Libya and our allies provided in Afghanistan.

JUST HOW GOOD IS THE F-22 RAPTOR? Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz (external - login to view)
 
Omicron
#83
Great. I don't get it. America seems like a country intent on chewing out it's own guts... turning their own crop of underemployed and socially frustrated cyber-geeks into de-facto free Chinese spies.

If it's anything like how I've seen Chinese think, China knew exactly what was happening and knew exactly how to exploit it.

You got'a admit... sometimes it looks like the founders of Canada might have actually had some forsight-wisdom keeping itself separate.

Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Why Not Buy the Chinese Version Just Like Wal-Mart Does?
A confidential Pentagon report leaked to the Washington Post accuses hackers of stealing the designs of many of America's most advanced weapons systems.
Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4 trillion. The 2007 hack of that project was reported previously.
The confidential list of compromised weapons system designs and technologies represents the clearest look at what the Chinese are suspected of targeting. When the list was read to independent defense experts, they said they were shocked by the extent of the cyber-espionage and the potential for compromising U.S. defenses.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Quote:

JUST HOW GOOD IS THE F-22 RAPTOR? Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz (external - login to view)

Exactly... Canada buys 8-12 Raptors, replacing the parts Uncle Sam wants to keep secret with Canada's own home-grown replacements (as if Canadians couldn't do that), and we carry on the game of chasing off Russian badgers sniffing at the gates.

In the mean times, how sad Canada would not just build the drones required to patrol its borders.

I met someone from Lockheed Martin who was not upset about Canada canceling the F-35 contract, because he said it just meant now Canuckistan would buy their drones.

I think he was a shareholder.
 
tay
#84
Fighter-jet contract may be punted beyond next election



The Harper government is in the throes of a mid-mandate housecleaning — and so, not coincidentally, is its tortured military procurement policy. The highest-profile casualty looks to be the Royal Canadian Air Force’s long-standing, never-say-die yen for a fleet of 65 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, a purchase that was “rebooted” by cabinet last winter and now looks a fair bet to be punted beyond the next federal election in 2015.

Avid readers of the procurement file will recall that, last December, after years of bombardment from aviation industry insiders, procurement experts and opposition critics, the Harper government effected a 180-degree reversal and scrapped the sole-source program it had up to that point staunchly defended, guns blazing, against all comers.


Why the change of heart? The theory making the rounds in Ottawa is two-fold. First, members of the caucus and cabinet are acutely aware that they need good-news stories, or at least the absence of more bad news stories, as they head into the pre-election period.


Fighter-jet contract may be punted beyond next election
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#85
Interesting that Canada would buy the F-35 to replace the F-18s when the F-35s are slower by hundreds of mph. The F-18s are capable of flying at supersonic speeds without the aferburners and the F-35s are not. Consequently the F-18s have a much better range as well. Tell me again why we should but the F-35 to replace the well proven CF-18.
 
tay
#86



'The whole thing demonstrates how risky and frankly, for a government, reckless to throw so many eggs into this basket of one plane that hasn’t even been determined is suitable for Canada’s needs,' says NDP MP Jack Harris.



The costs, $25-billion more than the current National Defence estimate, are contained in a section of the department’s latest report to Parliament on the F-35 that outlines “cost risk and uncertainty” and is intended to provide a range of effects on the cost of buying and operating a fleet of stealth attack planes if factors such as inflation, the exchange rate between the Canadian and U.S. dollar, the cost of fuel and the rate of aircraft to be produced by Lockheed Martin fluctuates either higher or lower than the estimates that are behind the current National Defence figures.

Okay, so we won't know what this pseudo-stealth light attack bomber will likely cost until it's been sitting in our hangars for many years at least, but we might do a little bargaining to protect our investment. You know, at the start, when the dealer may be willing to make a few concessions.

How about something like this? Let's say the warplane's stealth factor accounts for half of its value. Why not get a guarantee from the manufacturer, Lockheed, that the F-35's stealth advantage will be valid for at least 20-years of the aircraft's 36-year lifespan.

If our potential adversaries deploy counter-measures that effectively defeat the F-35's stealth advantage within 20-years they give us, say, a 15-billion dollar rebate. If that happens within 10-years, make it a 25-billion dollar rebate. Within 5-years, boost that to 35-billion dollars.

This isn't playing games with Lockheed and their iffy, prototypical technology, not at all. It's recognizing reality. If the F-35's stealth mask is taken down, it loses most of its value. It is subpar in speed, agility, payload and range. On the other hand, it is conceivable that Lockheed or another contractor could continue to engineer new systems and system upgrades - new materials, new sensors, new cloaking mechanisms - to keep the F-35 at least somewhat viable but they could introduce massive extra costs we haven't reckoned on.

The rebate idea would put Canada in funds to either afford to upgrade and retrofit new stealth technologies, if they're feasible, or to help with the costs of finding a replacement aircraft sooner than anticipated if the F-35 has to be prematurely written off.

Given the price tag for the F-35, it's not reasonable that Canada carry all the risk for buying Lockheed's second-line stealth warplane.

If we're to take Lockheed's promises at face value, then Lockheed should put real value behind those promises - in the form of a performance guarantee.


Canada’s Full F-35 Cost Could Climb To $71 Billion – DND Report | Ottawa Citizen (external - login to view)
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

You mean the "current government of Harperda"


Oh Boo-Hoo Walter. Don't get your knickers in a knot cause I don't like the arrogant bastard!

I've concluded , Nick, that what one says to Walt just 'doesn't matter', as the response he gives rarely bears resemblance to the question at hand....


hE JUST NEEDS TO HAVE SOMEONE RESPOND TO HIM,...
 
Tecumsehsbones
#88
"Pseudo-stealth." Another asswit who has no idea what "stealth" means.
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Sure - they'll be sold off to some minor power to replace their Sopwith Camels.

There was a tentative plan to flow ( flog?) them to New Zealand, AFAIR, which abandoned Jet fighter aircraft in the 1990's. Australia feels that they may be carrying the load in the upcoming Spratley Islands Oil fields conflict when the Beloved Peoples Republic of China imposes world peace- by levelling all its uppity upcoming lil neighbours....

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

"Pseudo-stealth." Another asswit who has no idea what "stealth" means.


Stealth, apparently, is 'in the eye of the beholder'... A lot of the stealth' apparently , is in massive software design within hardened Unfortunately this increases the heat signature and range limitations, as well as boosting the cost to three times that of the Boeing Super hornet.

Plus the Canadian Primary need is effective arctic patrol. Its what made the 'rejected F-111' a great Aussie workhorse, and the aircraft Canada should have bought.


Good reading:Chapter 2?Replacing Canada?s Fighter Jets (external - login to view)
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

Stealth, apparently, is 'in the eye of the beholder'... A lot of the stealth' apparently , is in massive software design within hardened Unfortunately this increases the heat signature and range limitations, as well as boosting the cost to three times that of the Boeing Super hornet.

More specifically, stealth is a combination of techniques designed to lower a plane's radar signature. Stealth is not a yes/no thing, it is a more/less thing. One of the stealthiest aircraft the U.S. ever produced was the old F-105 Thunderchief, whose radar signature was so low that they had to put in a drop-down radar reflector to ensure that the approach and landing radars at its own fields could see it.
 

Similar Threads

34
1
Migrating to Canada : life cost.
by pasticcino | Oct 3rd, 2006
125
Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!
by Socrates the Greek | Jun 16th, 2006
no new posts