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

[Omicron]

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]

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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BF6nD5iiADU/UaTCB1p4J2I/AAAAAAAAPWc/2j3cpJfZvv0/s1600/F-35+MacKay.JPG
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.

“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.

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

 

[Omicron]

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.

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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BF6nD5iiADU/UaTCB1p4J2I/AAAAAAAAPWc/2j3cpJfZvv0/s1600/F-35+MacKay.JPG
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.

“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.

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

JUST HOW GOOD IS THE F-22 RAPTOR? Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

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]

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]

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]

'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

 

[hunboldt]

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...:smile:.


hE JUST NEEDS TO HAVE SOMEONE RESPOND TO HIM,...

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

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

 

[hunboldt]

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....:smile:

"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

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

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.

 

[hunboldt]

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.

It's called Cayman Islands Bank account (s)...:lol:

 

[hunboldt]

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.

That is an extremely good point.

The F18-super hornet is now 'semi stealth- conformal arms and fuel tanks , etc., which is why the NUSN has standardised on the design. It's more than stealthy for Canadian requirements.
Boeing has a long reputation in Canada for living up to its commitments- and ensuring that its major sub contractors honor their commitments with their Canadian 'subtrades'.

McDonnell Lacks that history. The LAAS fiasco involved McDonnell at arms length( Satellites and launch vehicles, GPS systems , etc, Honeywell Aerospace as the 'major sub contractor". The net result was at least three established Canadian aerospace firms bankrupted, over three hundred high tech careers lost- and the Pelorus Navigation design produced in the United States.as 'war booty.

 

[hunboldt]

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?

Without having the exact figures in front of me, the Boeing quote is approx. half, with an anticipated 55 % ongoing cost rating.
The 'best solution' is still licensed manufacturing in Canada . the c-116 ( Northrop f5) cost 2.2. million each- 12.6 million in 2013 dollars.


However, a 'good precedent is ' if you ever screw Canadian companies , or the public purse ( as happened with LAAS) you don't get a second chance. The executive judgement at McDonnell is pretty questionable. Stops future nonsense cold in its tracks.

If we do need the f35 at some future time, we can buy the improved version at half the 'consortium price'. As Japan and Israel are doing.

 

[hunboldt]

Without having the exact figures in front of me, the Boeing quote is approx. half, with an anticipated 55 % ongoing cost rating.
The 'best solution' is still licensed manufacturing in Canada . the c-116 ( Northrop f5) cost 2.2. million each- 12.6 million in 2013 dollars.


However, a 'good precedent is ' if you ever screw Canadian companies , or the public purse ( as happened with LAAS) you don't get a second chance. The executive judgement at McDonnell is pretty questionable. Stops future nonsense cold in its tracks.

If we do need the f35 at some future time, we can buy the improved version at half the 'consortium price'. As Japan and Israel are doing.

CORRECTON TO ABOVE QUOTES: LOCKHEED MARTIN.I TYPED 'MCDONNELL. BRAIN BUBBLE FOLKS.

current COSTS ARE still 2.5 times the price of a new super Hornet F, estimated maintenance costs 45 % higher ( Wiki)

 

[hunboldt]

Are you gonna neg rep me for asking for a receipt?

Or does transparency only apply to CBC in your world?

he neg reps EVERYBODY with a sane outlook. Consider a mark of your intelligence and balanced reasoning...

Give him six-8 neg reps back. Eventually, he may get the message, - assuming that he isn't just seeking attention...

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

he neg reps EVERYBODY with a sane outlook. Consider a mark of your intelligence and balanced reasoning...

Give him six-8 neg reps back. Eventually, he may get the message, - assuming that he isn't just seeking attention...

Ay-yup. How can a reddie from a moron be a bad thing?

 

[tay]

WHAT WILL OTTAWA DO ABOUT OVER-PRICED F-35 ?






The Canadian Forces have finished exploring the world market for fighter jets, putting pressure on the government to decide whether to launch a competition or forge ahead with the sole-sourced purchase of F-35s before the next election.


According to documents posted on a federal website on Thursday, the Canadian Forces have already prepared draft reports on the price, the technical capabilities and the strategic advantages of the four fighter jets in the running.




In its 2012 report, the Auditor-General criticized the government’s sole-sourced acquisition process, and raised questions about the long-term cost of the program.


The federal government announced to great fanfare in 2010 it would forgo an open competition and buy the Lockheed F-35 because it was the only plane that would serve Canada’s needs. The Conservatives defended the decision in the 2011 election and often excoriated critics who suggested they had made a mistake.


In late 2012, however, the government backed away from its decision as it launched its new process, including the evaluation of the F-35’s major rivals.


Military’s fighter-jet reports to put ball in Ottawa’s court on F-35s - The Globe and Mail

 

[mentalfloss]

Scrap this plan.

Put the money into healthcare or education.

 

[darkbeaver]

Scrap this plan.

Put the money into healthcare or education.

Oh well if your intent is on wasting billions, and your suggestions indicates that, why not? From the top to the bottom of both healthcare and education the exact same institutional rot is encamped and there is nothing we can do to ensure real value for tax dollars in the present environment. You must already know or at least sense the radical change necessary across the western board if total collapse is to be managed with social salvage in mind.

 

[taxslave]

Scrap this plan.

Put the money into healthcare or education.

You do realize that out planes are older than their pilots now? Not a good way to be.