F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[HB_Pencil]

We should plan to pay an extra 35 million per plane instead of just an extra 20.

Current unit costs are basically $120 million per aircraft... so $35 million is excessive. $5 million or so is more realistic as a risk (excluding exchange rate fluctuations which would affect all options to varying degrees.)

$85 million per times 65 aircraft equals $5.525 billion, well within the budget.  We could purchase more than 65 aircraft.

The first 15 aircraft will cost more as they will be earlier units as they are earlier in the learning curve. As others point out there are other costs in the acquisition portion of the envelope.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Really?  When's the last time you operated an F-18 APG-73?  I can probably do it better, at a greater stand off range than the ADATS could do it. Probably not for PGM, however the idea is to get the PGM dropper before it can drop.  A proper IADS is definitely not part of our doctrine.  Having fighter to defend vital points, stationed at different places in Canada works and will work for the foreseeable future.  I can intercept a UAS, shoot down cruise missiles and shoot down aircraft.  In fact, all those contingencies and how we are going to deal with them is detailed (in excruciating details...) in the NORAD pubs. 

If you wanted to have a total, persistent coverage of the skies, we would need dedicated SAM sites.  However, for point, non-persistent defence, what we have now is perfect.

Really, you two are arguing apples and oranges.

Fighters and GBAD are not an "either/or"- they are just different methods of ensuring protection from air attack.

 

[AlexanderM]

Current unit costs are basically $120 million per aircraft... so $35 million is excessive. $5 million or so is more realistic as a risk (excluding exchange rate fluctuations which would affect all options to varying degrees.)

The first 15 aircraft will cost more as they will be earlier units as they are earlier in the learning curve. As others point out there are other costs in the acquisition portion of the envelope.

One could pay an extra $50 million per and still be within budget ($8.775 billion), so how much extra will it cost per fighter?

That's $85 million per, plus $50 million in extra costs per, times 65 aircraft, equals $8.775 billion.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

And the english version....

More at the link -> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html

Perhaps I glossed over this point of "...F-35 program and the Canadian government insists that it's no longer committed to buying the jet at all." in previous documents, press releases etc. but I was under the belief that the F-35 program is being re-assessed.  Nowhere did I get the feeling that the Canadian Government decided to not go with the F-35.

CBC rhetoric at its finest?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Fighters and GBAD are not an "either/or"- they are just different methods of ensuring protection from air attack.

They're not supposed to be "either/or", they're supposed to be complementary. Yet we now only have one.

That's $85 million per, plus $50 million in extra costs per, times 65 aircraft, equals $8.775 billion.

Acquisition budget for the aircraft is $5.992 billion or just over $92 million/aircraft. There's a contingency figure of $600 million but that's supposed to cover the entire acquisition budget and is actually only 40% of what's considered reasonable, with the rest of the budget made up by decreasing the number of aircraft bought. Looks like that shortfall will be covered by about 9 or 10 aircraft.

 

[AlexanderM]

Acquisition budget for the aircraft is $5.992 billion or just over $92 million/aircraft. There's a contingency figure of $600 million but that's supposed to cover the entire acquisition budget and is actually only 40% of what's considered reasonable, with the rest of the budget made up by decreasing the number of aircraft bought. Looks like that shortfall will be covered by about 9 or 10 aircraft.

I had thought the budget was $9 billion.

 

[dapaterson]

I had thought the budget was $9 billion.

The project to acquire the capability is $9B; aircraft are only part fo the capability.  New hangers & improved security are expensive; new simulators are expensive; new test equipment; training for pilots and crew... all those must be paid out of the $9B.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Current unit costs are basically $120 million per aircraft... so $35 million is excessive. $5 million or so is more realistic as a risk (excluding exchange rate fluctuations which would affect all options to varying degrees.)

In light of the issues surrounding the F35 project does it not irk you that Lockheed decided to just raise the price 20 million dollars?


I can't imagine needing a house to live in because mine is crumbling. Have a company try and sell me a house that hasn't been built yet. People tell me how amazing my new house will be. Have that house run into delay after delay after delay with no guarantee when it will actually be ready.
Then have the company tell me they want even more money, but it's a really great house so I should accept it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I can't imagine needing a house to live in because mine is crumbling. Have a company try and sell me a house that hasn't been built yet. People tell me how amazing my new house will be. Have that house run into delay after delay after delay with no guarantee when it will actually be ready.
Then have the company tell me they want even more money, but it's a really great house so I should accept it.

Post of the week right there................but we're all supposed to just ignore that and stay unwashed.

 

[dapaterson]

I can't imagine needing a house to live in because mine is crumbling. Have a company try and sell me a house that hasn't been built yet. People tell me how amazing my new house will be. Have that house run into delay after delay after delay with no guarantee when it will actually be ready.
Then have the company tell me they want even more money, but it's a really great house so I should accept it.

But... but...  Shiny!

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Really?  When's the last time you operated an F-18 APG-73?  I can probably do it better, at a greater stand off range than the ADATS could do it. Probably not for PGM, however the idea is to get the PGM dropper before it can drop.  A proper IADS is definitely not part of our doctrine.  Having fighter to defend vital points, stationed at different places in Canada works and will work for the foreseeable future.  I can intercept a UAS, shoot down cruise missiles and shoot down aircraft.  In fact, all those contingencies and how we are going to deal with them is detailed (in excruciating details...) in the NORAD pubs. 

If you wanted to have a total, persistent coverage of the skies, we would need dedicated SAM sites.  However, for point, non-persistent defence, what we have now is perfect.

Max... I have never flown a CF-18, but I am a Senior Air Defence instructor at the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery School, so I think i have some credibility for the points made above. I Spent 3 years as an ADATS Tp Comd, CPO, and also spent a year as a Scan Eagle OIC overseas. 

A CF-18 could intercept a HALE/MALE UAS system, but I would suggest it would have difficulty engaging a smaller SUAS sized platform, and would be unproportionate to the cost, and would be completely incapable of knocking down a mini UAS.  As the threat model indicates that the threat from UAS for operationally deployed troops is the Mini to small UAS, it would follow that a requirement for AD (remember- to prevent interference of manoeuvre from the air) to counter this threat is still required. 

Furthermore, a CF-18 would not be able to engage PGM (precision Guided Munitions).  You are correct however in that the goal is to find the artillery shooting prior to it shooting, but this is an ISR/STA function that more often than not requires the artillery to shoot prior to engagement (HALO, CB Radars, etc).  As the ground, manoeuvre, elements require the ability to manoeuvre unimpeded by interference from the air this is a threat that will be countered in the future from the ground also.

From the air, we need jets for soverignty and for CAS.  Assuming the price of the F-35 is going up, and it's abilities for air to air against Gen 5 fighters including the J20 and Pak-FA being questionable at best (I have a link to an Aussie article on this by real air force pilots if you want) it would seem that we could purchase some sort of Attack AH or UAS system for the CAS task and a cheaper jet for the soverignty bit, and use any extra to purchase a GBAD system to use against the ground threats mentioned above.

 

[WingsofFury]

I can't imagine needing a house to live in because mine is crumbling. Have a company try and sell me a house that hasn't been built yet. People tell me how amazing my new house will be. Have that house run into delay after delay after delay with no guarantee when it will actually be ready.

Then have the company tell me they want even more money, but it's a really great house so I should accept it.

I really don't understand why you're trying to become just like the regular reporters who report on this in the main stream media.

Canada's current fleet of CF-18's are good until 2025.  That's 12 years from now.  So tell me, where is it that our fighter force is crumbling, especially when one of the considerations is to extend it beyond the 2025 window?

It has been built.  It has been flying, and testing continues on it so that when the time comes for delivery of those aircraft it will be the most practical weapons platform for the RCAF.  When Canada acquired the CF-18, it wasn't in development.  It had lost the only competition which it was involved in, and on top of that there were the upgrades which had to be done to ensure that they met NATO standards.  Somebody, anybody, please tell me how all of this is any different from the F-35 program?

One can only imagine what the outrage would have been like had Canada chosen to build it's next generation fighter component off of the X-32 which had lost the JSF competition to the F-35.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Really, you two are arguing apples and oranges.

Fighters and GBAD are not an "either/or"- they are just different methods of ensuring protection from air attack.

I agree and argue for a layered "system of systems" as any AD system should be.  That's why I brought up that fighter aircraft are not the best platforms for C-UAS, c-aviation, and C-RAM, and a GBAD system is required to augment air frames.  Aviation and UAS can still fly at ceilings that are far below what a jet would consider viable, and artillery has no ceiling.  A good system is ready to defend against threats at ALL times.  :2c:

 

[Loachman]

it's abilities for air to air against Gen 5 fighters including the J20 and Pak-FA being questionable at best

Where have I seen this thinking before?

Oh, yes - Cold War. The US was so worried about the MiG 25 that they cancelled the XB70 Valkyrie programme. There was much gnashing of teeth because MiG 25 was believed by some to be superior to the F15.

Viktor Belenko put that nonsense to bed pretty conclusively in Hokkaido.

But ten feet tall, those Soviet fellows were in those days, and equipped with only the best, and in quantities vastly superior to those that we could scrape up.

It's not what something looks like on the outside that counts. It's what's on the inside. Based upon everything that I've seen and read over the last few decades, I'll bet that the Russians and Chinese will be playing catch-up for a good bit longer yet.

(I have a link to an Aussie article on this by real air force pilots if you want)

Oh, yes - those guys. I'm not quite sure what their agenda is, but I'm sure that they do not have one at all.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It's not what something looks like on the outside that counts. It's what's on the inside.

So, how would this be any different from some of the reports of the performance of the F-35?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Oh, yes - Cold War. The US was so worried about the MiG 25 that they cancelled the XB70 Valkyrie programme. There was much gnashing of teeth because MiG 25 was believed by some to be superior to the F15.

The B-70 was killed by its price more than anything else. The USAF wasn't all that worried about the B-70's vulnerability to aircraft flying slower than Mach 4. There isn't much out there now that could touch it.

This does sound a lot like the F-35 actually.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

I really don't understand why you're trying to become just like the regular idiots who report on this in the main stream media.

I just lack the enlightened state you've obviously reached.

While you have it all figured out, and feel Lockheed can do no wrong, lots of us unwashed regular idiots out here reserve the right to say WTF when a company decides to arbitrarily raise the price of something they're selling us by hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Inaccurate reporting (not impossible with our media), LockMart forked tongue (not...), or...?

1) CBC story:

“Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O’Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million…”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html

2) CTV story:

‘…
Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the stealth fighter program, said the “biggest misconception” of the F-35s is the cost. He said although the price tag of each jet has jumped $10-million U.S. from $65-million to $75-million, in today’s market that is still quite reasonable considering the jet’s value…’
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lockheed-kicks-off-cross-country-pr-blitz-for-f-35-1.1229858

Huh?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

A CF-18 could intercept a HALE/MALE UAS system, but I would suggest it would have difficulty engaging a smaller SUAS sized platform, and would be unproportionate to the cost, and would be completely incapable of knocking down a mini UAS.  As the threat model indicates that the threat from UAS for operationally deployed troops is the Mini to small UAS, it would follow that a requirement for AD (remember- to prevent interference of manoeuvre from the air) to counter this threat is still required. 

Furthermore, a CF-18 would not be able to engage PGM (precision Guided Munitions).  You are correct however in that the goal is to find the artillery shooting prior to it shooting, but this is an ISR/STA function that more often than not requires the artillery to shoot prior to engagement (HALO, CB Radars, etc).  As the ground, manoeuvre, elements require the ability to manoeuvre unimpeded by interference from the air this is a threat that will be countered in the future from the ground also.

Don't forget, we are talking about NORAD here.  I am not talking about having you overseas.  When is the last time that Canadian Land faced an artillery threat?  I'd guess pretty much never.  Hence, the requirement to maintain equipment and personnel to man this, for a practically non-existent threat.  The capabilities of the ADATS were severly limited by range and max altitude... 

From the air, we need jets for soverignty and for CAS.

And DCA and OCA and Air Interdiction and ISR...

Assuming the price of the F-35 is going up, and it's abilities for air to air against Gen 5 fighters including the J20 and Pak-FA being questionable at best (I have a link to an Aussie article on this by real air force pilots if you want)

The capabilities of the JSF are not questionnable.  Having been exposed to those, I can tell you that the ausairpower website is a bunch of bull.

it would seem that we could purchase some sort of Attack AH or UAS system for the CAS task and a cheaper jet for the soverignty bit, and use any extra to purchase a GBAD system to use against the ground threats mentioned above.

How do you conduct Air Interdiction with an Attack AH or a UAS?  How fast can you move from 1 AO to the other?  How do you do DCA? In our last 3 operationnal deployments, we have done anything but CAS. 

ObedientiaZelum:

I would compare it this way rather:  You are getting your house built, you get a quote from the contractor.  As the construction goes, some unforseen events happen and the contractor tells you it'll be slightly more expensive than it was originaly agreed to.  Luckily, you had put some money aside for this kind of contingencies.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The B-70 was killed by its price more than anything else. The USAF wasn't all that worried about the B-70's vulnerability to aircraft flying slower than Mach 4. There isn't much out there now that could touch it.

This does sound a lot like the F-35 actually.....

Having one of its prototypes destroyed in a mid-air collusion that resulted in the deaths of two test pilots probably didn't help either.