Federal Platforms on the Military

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Explain exactly how disobeying a sign and stepping on a mine is an ok way to die, but disobeying a sign and being shot to death by an automated robot is not? Both are IMO identical, neither of them is the "fault" of the machine, in both cases its the fault of the person not reading / being careful.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm pointing out machines have been autonomously killing people in war (and peacetime, e.g. minefields) for sometime, there is nothing scary about the application of this technology. At least the robot might be easier to remove once the war is over than a mine is (assuming no software glitch or similar).

PS. machines won't start a war, but humans will use all sorts of things as an excuse for war.

The difference you are not recognizing is you wish to give the machine the decision making power of life and death.

Mines are a great example...they are dumb...they go bang when you step on them...that is not autonomous that is a mechanical function period.

And they are not making a decision...the person placing them did.

If a person cannot read what good was the sign, what if it blew over...how many innocents have mines killed?

A killing machine that is given autonomous decision making power is making a decision.

So what if an airliner with a major in flight emergency (electrical fire, comm failure) has no choice but to save the passengers by entering your restricted zone? Too bad?

You autonomous machine only knows...cross the line I destroy.

Unlike a pilot that can ID the aircraft, pull alongside and using international protocols, re: lights and hand signals, determine the problem and escort them to a runway.

Unlike an autonomous machine gun armed vehicle that acts like an airborne autonomous UAV and can't realize the difference between a lost aid worker (common) from an armed soldier.

IMO

Tom

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

So what if an airliner with a major in flight emergency (electrical fire, comm failure) has no choice but to save the passengers by entering your restricted zone? Too bad?

So what happens right now if a school bus goes off the road and crashes into a mine field? I don't see the difference. The machines given the instruction to kill everything in a given area will still be "dumb", just like a fire and forget missile on its way to destroy an area, or a bomb dropped from a plane, is "dumb".

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

So what happens right now if a school bus goes off the road and crashes into a mine field? I don't see the difference. The machines given the instruction to kill everything in a given area will still be "dumb", just like a fire and forget missile on its way to destroy an area, or a bomb dropped from a plane, is "dumb".

Well I already expressed my displeasure at fire and forget so I won't bother again.

Many bombs have not been dropped because the pilot didn't like the risk or the over run zones.

As to the school bus...guess what I am in favor of the international banning of mines....there are still mines killing 40 years or more after conflicts have ended.

IMO
Tom

[DiscoBandit]

Really moa, bringing up landmines to back up your position... not the best choice there, champ much of the world agreed to no longer use anti personnel mines for all the same reasons we're arguing here- they don't discriminate, just who is in the wrong place at the wrong time go all a'splodey.

In a just world, you're right, the action of machines wouldn't start a war and the actions of autonomous constructs wouldn't be used as an excuse to go to war. We do not live in a just world and there is just no need for what you're describing, especially for Canada.

[moahunter]

^as military technology moves forward, the Canadian Forces will need it. You might find robotics distasteful, but as other countries that could for example challenge for the Arctic implement this technology (e.g. Russia), there won't be a choice if we want to preserve sovereignty.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Robotics for surveillance, patrol, observation and information gathering platform is not only palatable but highly intelligent and a great way to start asserting our border sovereignty.

I'm all for it.

But enforcement of the border by machine is not on my cards.

Use them for what they are good at...don't arm them.

IMO

Tom

[DiscoBandit]

Ahh, so it comes out, you're afraid of Russia. Moa, whether or not we have matched Russia's imaginary yet-to-exist automated UAVs won't matter if they decide to invade us. You know what would help with an invasion from the north? Surveillance and intelligence gathering, so we could know about it before it happens :P

[moahunter]

^I think we have to have a military capable of operating in NATO. I'm not afraid of the Russia of today, but I don't think its wise to blindly assume that the Russia, or China, or middle east of tommorow will be that friendly. History tells us that the Canadian military is needed. With our natural resources, and the opportunity to exploit more resources on our boundaries, I think its wise to be as world class as possible.

I agree with you that UAV survellance of the North would be a very good thing, perhaps a smarter move than replacing the existing aircraft. It would be fantastic I think to have a half dozen global hawkes patroling Canada's boundaries, including the arctic. In an ideal world it would be backed up by a few nuclear powered submarines, but not being an ideal world, patrol vessels and good transport aircraft are probably the keys.

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^I think we have to have a military capable of operating in NATO. I'm not afraid of the Russia of today, but I don't think its wise to blindly assume that the Russia, or China, or middle east of tommorow will be that friendly. History tells us that the Canadian military is needed. With our natural resources, and the opportunity to exploit more resources on our boundaries, I think its wise to be as world class as possible.

What does the ability to operate in NATO or perceived threats from the future have to do with your imaginary warplanes? The military is needed? I didn't see anyone dispute that. We're disputing a dumb idea and opinion on how the military should be used, not whether or not the military is necessary.

So, drop the crap about killer robots- what do you want to see for the future of the military? What direction is it going to go in, what is it going to be involved in, do you want to see it pulled out of the middle east entirely?

These are the questions this thread was made for discussing, not "Let's tell moahunter why automated killing machines are an awful idea."

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by DiscoBandit

What does the ability to operate in NATO or perceived threats from the future have to do with your imaginary warplanes?

If you take the time to go back and read through the thread, and look at the topic, you will see that there has been discussion and disagrement on NATO and whether or not it should be the focus for the Canadian military.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

If you take the time to go back and read through the thread, and look at the topic, you will see that there has been discussion and disagrement on NATO and whether or not it should be the focus for the Canadian military.

Have we been in the same conversation?

Tom

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Have we been in the same conversation?

Tom

Since moahunter hasn't replied, I guess not

[moahunter]

^Toms not a fan of NATO, imagines our forces can be sharp just training by themselves in Canada with Russian planes, and not going on international missions. I don't agree (in fact, even the NDP don't agree per Layton's support for the Libya operation).

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^Toms not a fan of NATO, imagines our forces can be sharp just training by themselves in Canada with Russian planes, and not going on international missions. I don't agree (in fact, even the NDP don't agree per Layton's support for the Libya operation).

Now Moa

I never said that

I question many things that we do...and frankly they should be questioned when we are discussing policy and overall direction.

But I never said:
I didn't like NATO
Never advocated Russian Aircraft
and never said we shouldn't do International missions, but think we should be a lot more selective
IMO

Tom

[moahunter]

^you said all those things Tom (well perhaps not the not of fan of NATO, just not a fan for Canada in NATO). You said we should have leased or purchased russian transport planes. That we should focus more on the arctic, that we could be just as good militarily if we avoided hot spots and just trained more (like Switzerland who you think have a great military even though they have never fought anywhere anytime recent), and I'm pretty sure you wrote NATO capability wasn't the important priority for Canadian forces.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^you said all those things Tom (well perhaps not the not of fan of NATO, just not a fan for Canada in NATO). You said we should have leased or purchased russian transport planes. That we should focus more on the arctic, that we could be just as good militarily if we avoided hot spots and just trained more (like Switzerland who you think have a great military even though they have never fought anywhere anytime recent), and I'm pretty sure you wrote NATO capability wasn't the important priority for Canadian forces.

Uh no

Never said squat about russian transports..they are actually Ukrainian for the record.

Did say we should evaluate our participation in NATO, in relation to the topic this thread.

Yes we should focus on the Arctic and our borders much more.

Said we had NATO compatibility issues now...which I read and been advised, never commented on their importance IIRC.

And if it is a case of killing Canadians for BS causes...damn right I would rather see them at home training.

And I will take Jane's Defense comments on the Swiss before an opinion.

IMO
Tom

[DiscoBandit]

You can apologize for putting words in Tom's mouth anytime, Moahunter.

[moahunter]

^So what's your view Disco, should we pull out of NATO (or reduce our role in it), avoid international war zones like Libya and focus on the Arctic?

Originally Posted by Carbon-14

Tom, sorry but I agree with Moahunter that that's a contradiction.
If you say "Should we even be a NATO member any longer?"
Walking away from treaties and agreements is exactly what you are suggesting. If you're not, why bring it up?

[Thomas Hinderks]

From post 57 on this thread...by me

Carbon-14

Shame you took my question that way...as with other questions I have made it is about what position the parties are taking...poor wording on my part.

We both know you read it, points out how selective you can choose to be.

These tactics are simply another symptom, this thread along with the DT thread have proven to me that the forum has become too self centred and useless for me.

So long and enjoy

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^So what's your view Disco, should we pull out of NATO (or reduce our role in it), avoid international war zones like Libya and focus on the Arctic?

Nice being selective and not apologizing to Tom. Could you back up any of your assertions without leaving out the part where someone clarified what they meant?

Membership in NATO in my opinion isn't a pressing issue but we should question our military role in the world. Less world police, more tech powerhouse. That's what I'd like to see.

Should we avoid international war zones? Depends on the case. Are people suffering, is there genocide occurring, is it just violent political conflict internal to that country? Some things we have absolutely no hand in and shouldn't involve ourselves, and I can't say in black and white in what situations the military should be used in.

The arctic? I think other countries have more legitimate claims to it. It'd be nice to have, but I don't think we should go to war over it. The US doesn't even recognize Canada's territorial claim and calls it chest thumping.

[DiscoBandit]

Pentagon buying chief: F-35 'unaffordable' without changes

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told senators Thursday that the latest cost estimate for the F-35 fighter program — which has nearly doubled from initial targets — would make the fleet of war planes unaffordable.

The Pentagon last year examined whether there was a "better alternative" to completing the triple-variant F-35 project, but found none, Carter said. "But it has to be affordable. Right now, it is not," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Pentagon's top weapons buyer said the program currently has "an unacceptably high acquisition bill."

Pentagon officials are working with the military's program office and prime contractor Lockheed Martin to bring down the program's estimated $385 billion price tag. The Pentagon negotiated a tougher deal with Lockheed for the latest batch of jets that featured a smaller price tag than under previous contracts.
The cost of each F-35 jet, short of program changes, would be $103 million, according to Christine Fox, director of the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the committee's ranking member, noted earlier in a hearing on the program that, initially, the Pentagon intended each plane to cost $69 million.

Senior Pentagon officials earlier this year placed the Marine Corp's version of the F-35 program on two years of probation to due ongoing design and development flaws. They also cut the number of F-35s the Navy and Air Force intend to purchase, and shook up the program's production schedule.

In written testimony submitted to the panel, Pentagon and Lockheed officials presented an upbeat assessment of revised program plans. McCain and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's chairman, opened the session with statements critical of the program's history of schedule delays, developmental setbacks and cost spikes.

Pretty interesting. If the Pentagon is getting cold feet about the cost, why are conservatives here still railing for it so hard?

Hopefully they change their tune. This is silly.

[moahunter]

^Canada is buying only 60 odd planes, which opens up contracts to Canadian business to all of them built for any market. The price to buy is less than what we pay today per plane per annum to maintain/operate our existing planes.

US is buying more than a thousand. With their debt/deficit, its much harder to justify the cost I think. This is all part of the negotiations to bring down the price. Its a shame they tried to build the verticle lift models, with hind-site, it might have been better to have boeing and lockheed both produce planes without that requirement. There would be competition then, like there was with F16 and F18.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^Canada is buying only 60 odd planes, which opens up contracts to Canadian business to all of them built for any market. The price to buy is less than what we pay today per plane per annum to maintain/operate our existing planes.

There are no guarantees... there are, obviously, no contracts... for those contracts! The price to buy??? What price figure are you using? The one that Harper Conservatives still, without foundation, pronounce as the purchase cost? That one? The Harper Conservative purchase cost that no other country, including the U.S., would appear to be eligible for? The purchase cost that the PBO doesn't agree with... that the U.S. Government Accountability Office doesn't agree with... that the U.S. DoD doesn't agree with... that the Pentagon doesn't agree with... that one?

Originally Posted by moahunter

US is buying more than a thousand. With their debt/deficit, its much harder to justify the cost I think. This is all part of the negotiations to bring down the price. Its a shame they tried to build the verticle lift models, with hind-site, it might have been better to have boeing and lockheed both produce planes without that requirement. There would be competition then, like there was with F16 and F18.

Negotiations to bring down the price? Attempting to justify the price? Well... understanding what the actual cost will be is the starting point - hey? But, then again, you've accepted the Conservative party line... on all accounts.

[Blueline]

Late , Over budget, Not fully equiped + The first one isn't even ours
(On Loan from Sikorsky)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1245504.html
"In 2004, 28 Cyclones were ordered, with a delivery date in 2008, in a contract worth more than $5 billion.

"We’re five years into our government . . . and we have a plane sitting on the tarmac," MacKay said. "I think that’s pretty good."

Federal auditor general Sheila Fraser last year criticized the procurement for cost overruns and delays. The final price tag is now expected to be $6.2 billion, including the cost of maintaining the Sea Kings through the delays. Sikorsky faces the possibility of millions of dollars in fines for late delivery"

I cannot wait for those jets to show up .............

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Blueline

Late , Over budget, Not fully equiped + The first one isn't even ours
(On Loan from Sikorsky) [/I]"

And where does that fiasco go back to? A certain decision by a Liberal Government which cost Canadian forces lives, to not replace the Sea Kings for a much cheaper price when they needed be replaced.

More Comorants could have been purchased, but there have been issues with those aircraft (stress fractures). Hopefully the Sikorskys will turn out better, being based on an evolution of the sucessful BlackHawk platform (like anything that is up to date in the military though, there is no guarantee ever, Sirkorsky has been fined for delays).

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by moahunter

The price to buy is less than what we pay today per plane per annum to maintain/operate our existing planes.

I would LOVE to see your course for that, considering that the purchase price of the new planes is very much up in the air, to say nothing of the expected maintenance costs of the new planes.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

I would LOVE to see your course for that, considering that the purchase price of the new planes is very much up in the air, to say nothing of the expected maintenance costs of the new planes.

Apparently, one needs to be conversant in moaMath... or simply accept, verbatim, Harper Conservative pricing - pricing that multiple organizations are significantly, with foundation, calling into question. Somehow, in spite of all the challenges coming forward, Conservatives are still holding firm to the nonsense that, per plane, the cost will be ~$75 million... which is anywhere from $30 million to $65 million less than per plane costs (now) coming forward from various organizations challenging the cost overruns.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

I would LOVE to see your course for that, considering that the purchase price of the new planes is very much up in the air, to say nothing of the expected maintenance costs of the new planes.

We are paying $250m right now for the CF-18's every single year on maintenance. Keeping them flying will require even more investment in them.

The purchase price of a F35, per the US report above, is less than that, around $100m.

My statement above is 100% correct. People are missing the forest form the trees.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

We are paying $250m right now for the CF-18's every single year on maintenance. Keeping them flying will require even more investment in them.

The purchase price of a F35, per the US report above, is less than that, around $100m.

My statement above is 100% correct. People are missing the forest form the trees.

Other than you conflating purchase price with operational service costs...

F-35 service costs may be more than double Ottawa’s estimate

An estimate by a Pentagon cost-analysis unit projects it will cost $915-billion to keep the U.S. fleet of 2,443 jets flying for 30 years.

The document, leaked to Bloomberg in Washington, forecasts a lifetime maintenance bill of roughly $375-million per aircraft.

Alan Williams, a former senior Canadian defence official, says the costs would be comparable for the 65 planes the Conservative government intends to purchase, starting in 2017.

Using the Pentagon numbers, the 65 planes would cost more than $24-billion to maintain over 30 years, well above Canadian government estimates.

[Blueline]

Moa, I am sorry but the conSWERVatives coulda cancelled the contract and taken their lumps, blamed the libs and still would be ahead of where they are today and likely will be tomorrow

[moahunter]

^but our forces would be flying antiquated planes that we need to replace now. The Liberal government agreed to go into the international competition / consortium to develop this aircraft. Canada's component is a drop in the ocean compared to what the US is going to spend, the alternative of trying to keep the CF18's flying past their useful life, and the benefit for our industry from the US F35 spend.

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by moahunter

We are paying $250m right now for the CF-18's every single year on maintenance. Keeping them flying will require even more investment in them.

The purchase price of a F35, per the US report above, is less than that, around $100m.

My statement above is 100% correct. People are missing the forest form the trees.

Oh, I see, I guess I misunderstood your argument for one that might actually make sense. What does the current annual maintenance cost of an ENTIRE FLEET OF 100 PLANES have to do with the cost of a SINGLE NEW PLANE?

Also, you quite falsely claimed in your original post that we're spending MORE per plane on maintenance on an annual basis than the cost of a brand new plane. Your figure of $250m is for the entire fleet of about 100-120 planes. So in actuality, we're spending about 2-3 million per plane on maintenance annually (assuming the 250m figure is correct).

I had assumed you were making some sort of argument that replacing the F-18 fleet would reduce future maintenance outlays. Which might have made a bit of sense, if it were actually true. As it stands from Jeff's link, it looks like the maintenance for the new fleet will be 2-4 times higher at least than the maintenance for the existing fleet, over and above the cost of purchasing the planes themselves. For half the number of planes.

[moahunter]

^lol, maybe not one of my better arguments then.

Anyway, so what plane do you think Canada should buy, and why do you think it will be cheaper than $101m per plane (per that US report), or cheaper to maintain/upgrade than having the same aircraft as the US is buying more than a 1,000 of?

The Forces have already said the F-35 is their preferred aircraft. What lessor capability aircraft would you rather give them (shutting Canadian businesses out of the F35 contracts)?

[Marcel Petrin]

Personally I'm not knowledgeable enough about fighter aircraft to tell the DND that they should use one or another. What needs to be done is determine the actual, realistic cost of purchasing and maintaining the fleet for the next 30 years so that politicians, bureaucrats, the military and average citizens can make their own judgements about whether spending 30-40 billion dollars on the fleet is something worthwhile.

I'm not opposed to the F-35. I'm opposed to the process by which Canada has chosen it, and I'm especially opposed to the way it's being handled by the Conservatives.

Another alternative to consider would be the Eurofighter Typhoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon), but it's debatable whether it would be any cheaper or that it would meet whatever requirements we've set out for the F-18 replacement.

Unfortunately, barring looking at Russian planes (which is unlikely for a whole slew of reasons), it pretty much comes to the F-35, the Typhoon, or perhaps the Rafale.

[moahunter]

^The Typhoon is an air-superiority fighter, it costs more than the F35, and will cost more to upgrade (as fewer in the skys). Each time new software / weapons come along, the less planes there are, the higher the cost (as fewer to spread them over).

A realistic alternative is the Boeing Superhornet. It isn't as capable though, and the price over time might not end up that diffferent when looking at the whole 30 years. The big downside of this one is for Canadian industry, who wouldn't get to work on the newer technologies in the F35.

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

The Forces have already said the F-35 is their preferred aircraft. What lessor capability aircraft would you rather give them (shutting Canadian businesses out of the F35 contracts)?

Nice phrasing smooth. Russia and China (those countries you love to fear monger over) are years away from a generation five aircraft, and even when they do get them and roll them out, the F-35 would probably be rather old and there are no foreseeable conflicts with these countries that would justify needing the technology to overcome theirs at this point. The Typhoon, Gripen, F/A18F and Rafale have all been offered, are in production, and can support Canadian businesses (with possible bonuses of being able to use already existing equipment or getting things given to us by the companies for switching to them).

What do you foresee Canada getting involved in that the Gripen, Typhoon, F/A18F or Rafale would not be acceptable to use? It's good enough for the other world powers, so please explain why these planes would not be good enough for us.

From what you're saying, we should go with it because it is the "best", which is an awfully confident thing to say about a plane that isn't even 100% complete yet, and are given no justification for why we need it past that.

[Thomas Hinderks]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html

[moahunter]

^the website you quote Tom is part of a long campaign in Australia to aquire the more expensive F-22 rather than the F-35. That is not an option for Canada despite what the blog says. It is also hotly debated whether the F-35 is signifcantly inferior to the F-22 (due to its superior software / sensor suite in F-35). The F-22 is totally unsutiable for Canada, even the US is struggling with the costs of maintaining them.

The whole point of the F-35 program has been from the outset to develop a plane that has a lower cost to maintain than previous aircraft, while still being 5th generation. The program has had a number of problems (like almost every military aircraft program), the most significant being the verticle lift aircraft (which are now suspended).

[DiscoBandit]

For some reason, scrolling down the picture of the Canadian flag with the F-35 in front of it startled me and I jumped a little.

That's a really interesting link, thanks for posting it!

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by DiscoBandit

From what you're saying, we should go with it because it is the "best", which is an awfully confident thing to say about a plane that isn't even 100% complete yet, and are given no justification for why we need it past that.

I think the reasons that the tip the balance over say, the superhornet (I don't think the European competitors are really that relevant, as those planes will cost more to maintain / upgrade due to their small volume), are:

- the contracts for Canadian industry (i.e. not limited to the piddling 60 planes we buy, but with the F35 open to over 1,000 aircraft)
- the lifecycle - Superhornet is a terrific aircraft but it is at the end of its production run. We will be buying a plane that will need constant upgrades over the next decades, whereas those upgrades are already built into F35 or will piggyback off US program.
- the capabilites of the F35- it's avionics / sensor suite will be incredibly useful - it will fully integrate into any NATO operation, and will be more capable of identifying and elimintating foes over Canada also.
- the F35 might not cost that much more, and may actually be less over lifecycle
- political / optics - if we want to win US defense contracts for Canadian companies, it helps us to follow through on our committments, including the one made by the Liberal party to this program.

[Thomas Hinderks]

^the website you quote Tom is part of a long campaign

So if it doesn't agree with you it's some kind of conspiracy? Interesting.

It is a well presented and thought out summary of the issues and design definitions of the aircraft involved. Just doesn't agree with what you want.

The presenter, a highly qualified individual, in suspect? And your credentials on the topic are?

To this:

I think the reasons that the tip the balance over say, the superhornet (I don't think the European competitors are really that relevant, as those planes will cost more to maintain / upgrade due to their small volume), are:

- the contracts for Canadian industry (i.e. not limited to the piddling 60 planes we buy, but with the F35 open to over 1,000 aircraft)
- the lifecycle - Superhornet is a terrific aircraft but it is at the end of its production run. We will be buying a plane that will need constant upgrades over the next decades, whereas those upgrades are already built into F35 or will piggyback off US program.
- the capabilites of the F35- it's avionics / sensor suite will be incredibly useful - it will fully integrate into any NATO operation, and will be more capable of identifying and elimintating foes over Canada also.

Really, like an initial batch of the F-35 will fair any better in terms of required "patches", "mods" and fixes. Please do read a little history about the problems of "all new" aircraft and their cost overruns and problems.

I personally have nothing against the F-35 in it's designed role...but in this case wrong tool for the wrong job.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

So if it doesn't agree with you it's some kind of conspiracy? Interesting.
.

Tom, so you agree with the conclusion to spend $200m plus per plane to buy the F22, a plane that is considerably more expensive to use / maintain, and which the US has stated cannot be exported outside the US due to restrictions on technology transfers?

Interseting. The critic you quote who is running the campaign to somehow get Australia (and now it also seems Canada) the F22 (something that is impossible), per below:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1225940232528

The Australian is not aware of anyone privy to the complete and highly classified briefing on the F-35 in order to be critical of its capabilities, though at least one of the aircraft's staunchest and highest profile Australian critics is known to have refused just such a briefing.

Those who argue in favour of the F-22 conveniently forget that it has not, is not, and never will be, available to Australia -- even if we could afford it. The US Air Force estimated last year that it would cost Japan $US250m per aircraft for an export version if the congressional ban on its overseas sale could be overturned.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Tom, so you agree with the conclusion to spend $200m plus per plane to buy the F22, a plane that is considerably more expensive to use / maintain, and which the US has stated cannot be exported outside the US due to restrictions on technology transfers?

Interseting.

No what is interesting is you obviously did not read the article. We are cleared to purchase the F-22, that can also be corroborated through the internet, and you are pulling numbers from thin air, unless of course you wish to post a recent source to your 200m.

And what will the price of the F-35 be...oh yeah we don't know yet.

We will lose the economic spin offs...yeah right same company, they will be happy to accommodate the same deal as they have done in past dealings, likely a little better as development costs on the F-22 have already been recovered thru the American programs.

What I am I in favor of
1) Clearly defined requirements
2) Open competition on the performance of the aircraft/their ability to do the job and a clear contract with all costs up front...prefer license built in Canada.

and two engines so we don't get a pilot killer

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

and two engines so we don't get a pilot killer

Like that CF18 that almost killed its pilot recently when crashed? The F18 is a two engine plane that has proved less reliable than the one engine F16 over its service life. Do you consider the F16 to be a pilot killer?

PS there is a congressional ban on exporting the F22 to anyone outside the US (please provide a source that says otherwise, there have been multiple attempts to overturn this ban which have all failed to date).

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Tom, so you agree with the conclusion to spend $200m plus per plane to buy the F22, a plane that is considerably more expensive to use / maintain, and which the US has stated cannot be exported outside the US due to restrictions on technology transfers?

Interseting. The critic you quote who is running the campaign to somehow get Australia (and now it also seems Canada) the F22 (something that is impossible), per below:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1225940232528

So going verbatim from the article:

Correct Oz cannot get the F-22 unless there is Congressional permission.
As they did with the F-111!

Other than an off the cuff guess, estimate from an unnamed Airforce official they have no idea of the cost.

Mind you they have no idea of the cost of the F-35!

The larger point you have yet to address:
By the design definition wrong airplane for the job.

Better still...
Hey DND publicly release the the complete criteria that the replacement aircraft needs to meet!!!

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

almost

And that was in an air show practice in a flight regime never used in normal or combat operations.

Nice reach moa

[DiscoBandit]

Only new things can be good, the F-35 is the only option that fulfills the requirements our unknown missions of the future will have, and we can ONLY throw Canadian businesses a bone if we stay with it, lift our heads proudly, and strut into the future while the F-35 program bleeds money and credibility.

Got it.

[moahunter]

^Tom, the cost overrun above re the Pentagon about the F35 talks about 100m. The F22 proved to be a horrendously expensive program, with a $200m plus cost, and the planes are a nightmare to maintain requiring constant support for the stealth surfaces (which won't be an issue for the F35). Yes the F22 its a great plane, but if you think Canadians are upset at the F35, they aren't going to be happy with a much more expensive / troublesome aircraft, that blogger you quoted is an F22 fanatic.

And no, Canada isn't going to get an exemption to buy it anytime soon, both Japan and Israel have failed to get that (although Israel appears happy with the F35, although I guess you don't think the Israeli's know anything about good aircraft).

[Thomas Hinderks]

Oooo Oooo I almost missed this one

The F18 is a two engine plane that has proved less reliable than the one engine F16 over its service life.

Talk about apple to oranges
If the F-16 is also operated by the Navy and Marines, did carrier deck operations and serious mud moving duties (not the medium to high level it was assigned) you would have an argument.

But you don't

And no, Canada isn't going to get an exemption to buy it anytime soon, both Japan and Israel have failed to get that (although Israel appears happy with the F35, although I guess you don't think the Israeli's know anything about good aircraft).

You obviously have inside information of a request that has not been put forward and an answer that flies in the face of past agreements such as the F-101, Bomarc and a series of others.

As to Israel's needs could be a decent choice, short range, all over land, generally home territory and they desire a mud mover...for them it could be the right tool for their job

You conveniently ignore what others say in your zeal to defend a bad decision.

From post 141 above by me

I personally have nothing against the F-35 in it's designed role...but in this case wrong tool for the wrong job.

[Thomas Hinderks]

I have no specific love to the F-22, my devotion is to get the right equipment for a clearly defined mission with a clear process.

From post 143 above by me

What I am I in favor of
1) Clearly defined requirements
2) Open competition on the performance of the aircraft/their ability to do the job and a clear contract with all costs up front...prefer license built in Canada.

and two engines so we don't get a pilot killer

From post 145 above by me

The larger point you have yet to address:
By the design definition wrong airplane for the job.

Better still...
Hey DND publicly release the the complete criteria that the replacement aircraft needs to meet!!!

[Thomas Hinderks]

Deja Vu
One reason I am so cynical is I have lived through this one before...same game, different party in power (same difference) and we didn't get the "best' aircraft then and won't now...it's about politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fig...rcraft_program

From the link:

Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces included two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

My statement above is 100% correct. People are missing the forest form the trees.

and yet... you were so confident... 100% worth. Like I said, moaMath!

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

The Liberal government agreed to go into the international competition / consortium to develop this aircraft.

You keep referencing an earlier Liberal government decision... but you don't bother to advise there are no financial penalties for Canada opting out. You're also aware of the latest Liberal party position on the F-35; a position that clearly seeks a proper sourced, open competition... one with fully defined requirements that align with Canada's needs. To this date, as I'm aware, there are no defined Canadian requirements - we have simply lined up, lock-step, with the U.S. and deferred to their requirements. In fact, let's take that a step further... here's a challenge for you to identify and present what Canada's actual requirements are.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

The Forces have already said the F-35 is their preferred aircraft. What lessor capability aircraft would you rather give them (shutting Canadian businesses out of the F35 contracts)?

Preferred aircraft? Based on what Canadian DND requirements?

How about an aircraft with a purchase price that actually includes the costs for an engine? How about an aircraft that, presuming stealth is actually a requirement, wouldn't have to lose it's stealth capability by adding additional gas 'tanks' to fly into Canada's far north... sweet! 5th generation - why?

[moahunter]

^^well lets see what happens in the US now with respect to the F35 program.

^so what aircraft do you prefer Jeff? A competition was held for the development of the F35. It may be stealth, but it has been designed from the outset to be lower cost than existing stealth aircraft (and yes, like virtually every other military development ever, it is over cost, just like the Superhornet was, just like the Typhoon was, just like the F22 was...).

How many millions do you think Canada should spend to recreate the assessment that already done on an international basis for the JSF program to consider aircraft that are likely more expensive long term (probably only to conclude that the F35 is the best bet, all the while puting at risk millions of dollars of defense contracts / jobs for Canadian companies)?

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^Tom, the cost overrun above re the Pentagon about the F35 talks about 100m. The F22 proved to be a horrendously expensive program, with a $200m plus cost, and the planes are a nightmare to maintain requiring constant support for the stealth surfaces (which won't be an issue for the F35). Yes the F22 its a great plane, but if you think Canadians are upset at the F35, they aren't going to be happy with a much more expensive / troublesome aircraft, that blogger you quoted is an F22 fanatic.

And no, Canada isn't going to get an exemption to buy it anytime soon, both Japan and Israel have failed to get that (although Israel appears happy with the F35, although I guess you don't think the Israeli's know anything about good aircraft).

Main issue with the F-22 is that production was stopped at 187 planes. They aren't making any more, so we aren't likely to be able to buy any more.

However cost wise, they're no more expensive than the F-35 is likely to turn out to be, at about 140-150 million each flyaway cost in 2009. Not your claimed 200 million plus. For an aircraft that is unquestionably far more capable in virtually every respect.

[moahunter]

^well lets see what happens in the US now with respect to the F35 program.

Here's a recent coment on maintenance, a bit more than F16 and F18 but not outrageously so for a superior aircraft:

Fox said the F-35's estimated maintenance and support costs, while less than those of the F-22, the military's other stealth fighter, are about 33 percent more than the older F-16s and F-18s it's replacing.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1Nam0FUGw

[Thomas Hinderks]

From the above link

"The four highest development risks" are the software, pilot controls, safely touching down with a full load on the vertical-landing version of the plane, and helmet-mounted displays, said Carter, who testified with Rear Admiral David Venlet, the F-35 program manager, and David Van Buren, the Air Force's top weapons buyer.

So lets take a look the highest development risks
1) Software.....this deep into the game and not solved? That's a big worry
2) Pilot controls...oh come on, really...think it's tied to the soft ware issue?
3) V/STOL landing weight...who cares doesn't apply to us
4) Helmet mounted displays...these have been around a decade in highly advanced form, now there is an issue?

Then there's the engine issue

and so much for the less expensive to operate.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

[However cost wise, they're no more expensive than the F-35 is likely to turn out to be, at about 140-150 million each flyaway cost in 2009. Not your claimed 200 million plus. For an aircraft that is unquestionably far more capable in virtually every respect.

Really? What countries pay that for an F-22? (the US Paid a lot more, having borne all the R&D during the cold war for this cold war air superiority fighter):

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22 total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost", is already spent and is separate from money used for future procurement. The Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $177.6 million in 2006 based on a production run of 181 airframes.[26][27] By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million;[28] decreasing with larger volumes.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...or#cite_note-4

You really think America is going to sell them for the incremental cost and not the fully loaded? If Canada had been in the F22 program, (likely the only way the US would have been willing to sell them to us), we would have been facing $339m per aircraft. There is a suggestion that if export embargo is lifted (which it likely won't be as the US wants to retain this high end stealth technology for itself), Japan will pay $250m per aircraft.

The F22 is also a far more expensive plane to maintain than any other fighter.

The cost for the F35 is, per earlier in this thread:

Pentagon officials are working with the military's program office and prime contractor Lockheed Martin to bring down the program's estimated $385 billion price tag. The Pentagon negotiated a tougher deal with Lockheed for the latest batch of jets that featured a smaller price tag than under previous contracts.

The cost of each F-35 jet, short of program changes, would be $103 million, according to Christine Fox, director of the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

If the US does scrap the F35, they won't be buying more F22's, they simply can't afford the unit and maintenance price for the number of aircraft they need. The Pentagon is trying to drive the F35 price down from around 100m to about 70 or 80m.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Main issue with the F-22 is that production was stopped at 187 planes. They aren't making any more, so we aren't likely to be able to buy any more.

However cost wise, they're no more expensive than the F-35 is likely to turn out to be, at about 140-150 million each flyaway cost in 2009. Not your claimed 200 million plus. For an aircraft that is unquestionably far more capable in virtually every respect.

Your two points are good ones
"Main issue with the F-22 is that production was stopped at 187 planes"
- Out of production simply means the USAF is not ordering anymore, the tooling is all there and the capability for a de bugged aircraft.
- Out of production also means the opportunity to license build as we did with the CF-104 when the USAF order was filled.

"However cost wise, they're no more expensive than the F-35 is likely to turn out to be"
- Exactly

"For an aircraft that is unquestionably far more capable in virtually every respect."
- In fairness it was designed with a different mission criteria, one that should more closely match our needs.
- Right tool so to speak.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

"However cost wise, they're no more expensive than the F-35 is likely to turn out to be"
- Exactly.

I just provided two quotes in my post above to show thats false. It is also total nonesense if you read about the maintenance nightmares they are having in the US with the advanced stealth surfaces on the F22 (something that isn't on the F35 which uses a most cost effective solution).

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.

The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070903020.html

This is why the F22 program was scrapped for the F35 (instead of the original plans for both aircraft to be produced to compliment each other). The decision was taken that with advanced software / avionics, the F35 is sufficient in the US to replace natural attrition in the F22's they already have.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Uh No

They are still playing estimates as noted in the link you provided.
We have no numbers on the F-22 other than the 138m referred

But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fig...rcraft_program from post 151.

Too bad we can't learn from past mistakes and repeat them so often on so many different topics.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Uh No

They are still playing estimates as noted in the link you provided.
We have no numbers on the F-22 other than the 138m referred

Can you give an example of any other state of the art aircraft where it has been sold to other nations with zero recover of the R&D? The total cost of F-22 is $361 million per the Government accountability office:

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft.

Here is the price for Japan in 2009:

WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force estimates it would cost Japan as much as $250 million per plane to buy dozens of radar-evading F-22 fighter jets, a U.S. senator told Japan's ambassador in a letter, saying he hopes to reverse a current U.S. ban on such exports.

Senator Daniel Inouye, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said this price included the cost of creating an export version of the most advanced U.S. fighter, built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N). This assumes production would begin in four to five years, with deliveries in seven to nine years, according to two sources familiar with the letter

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...30055420090605

And then there are the maintenance issues I referenced, which was the death nell for the program (because air crews hate working on it - 30 hours for each hour in the sky).

The total cost of the F35 (not the incremental) is projected currently at about $100m, per the Pentagon quote I provided above.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Can you give an example of anyother state of the art aircraft where it has been sold to other nations with zero recover of the R&D?

Ready:
F-101 Voodoo, Bomarc, F-5, A-4 Skyhawk (Israel), F-15 & F-16 (Israel), Apache Helicopter (Britain), F-18A (Canada). Is that enough or do I need to go into my notes?

The total cost of F-22 is $361 million per the Government accountability office:

Which includes the developmental costs from one of the links above.

The total cost of the F35 (not the incremental) is projected currently at $100m.

I have highlighted the key word in this quote...projected...a fancy way of saying estimated.

From the link you provided:

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

Built by the same people that build the F-35! How is this helping your argument?

Which is why I stand by what I have repeatedly said, here in post 162:

But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.

[moahunter]

^I notice you convinently ignore the $250m price for Japan. OK, sure the US will sell it for its marginal cost to nice Canada... and sure Canada would love to have a plane that requires 30 hours maintenance for each hour in the sky...

But heck, lets take your word on what plane meets DND needs over this "fool":

“The F-35 Lightning II is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf,” says Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Commander of Air Command.

“Given the increasingly complex and uncertain future security environment, the F-35 Lightning II will provide Canada with the greatest probability of mission success and the greatest probability that our men and women will survive and return safely from their missions.”

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/...ng.asp?id=1396

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^I notice you convinently ignore the $250m price for Japan. OK, sure the US will sell it for its marginal cost to nice Canada... and sure Canada would love to have a plane that requires 30 hours maintenance for each hour in the sky...

And you have ignored...

Ready:
F-101 Voodoo, Bomarc, F-5, A-4 Skyhawk (Israel), F-15 & F-16 (Israel), Apache Helicopter (Britain), F-18A (Canada). Is that enough or do I need to go into my notes?

I have highlighted the key word in this quote...projected...a fancy way of saying estimated.

Built by the same people that build the F-35! How is this helping your argument?

One you must really hate:

Which is why I stand by what I have repeatedly said, here in post 162:
Quote:
But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.

In short you ignore anything that goes against your premise that it's the right aircraft and that the PC government in power is right.

Facts are I tend to vote PC, but I am not afraid to call them out when they are wrong and this time they are IMO.

Once again instead of selecting the right mix of equipment they are doing the NFA all over again with a political cheap skate decision to try and use one piece of equipment to do multiple jobs

When in fact they need to define the mission profiles that need to be filled and get the right equipment for each.
You want a mud mover...get a mud mover
Want an long range interceptor...get a long range interceptor
Want an air superiority fighter...get an air superiority fighter

Next they will want that mud moving, long range interceptor, air superiority fighter to also be a tactical and strategic transport (Hercules/C-17)

Get the right tools for the jobs

There is an USAF old joke:
Politician keep cutting budgets and trying to be multi purpose, so they get fewer and fewer aircraft to do more and more jobs.

Soon they will have only "ONE" airplane to do everything
USAF gets it Monday-Wednesday-Friday
Navy gets it Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday
Marines get it Sunday

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^I notice you convinently ignore the $250m price for Japan. OK, sure the US will sell it for its marginal cost to nice Canada... and sure Canada would love to have a plane that requires 30 hours maintenance for each hour in the sky...

But heck, lets take your word on what plane meets DND needs over this "fool":

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/...ng.asp?id=1396

Actually had the pleasure of meeting him...nice guy, well spoken, diplomatic and very astute politically.

You do realize he holds a position granted by the minister of defense?
You do realize it is a highly political position?

You do realize the whole F-35 issue is a highly politically charged decision that if there is any resistance by the military (IMO) the budget will likely disappear?

You actually think I believe you are that naive?

[moahunter]

^^OK:

On my coment that none are sold for marginal cost while they were state of the art to Canada, I stand by it. All of those aircraft were well into lifecycle, I provided a source that US would sell F22 for $250m, you have not provided any source for what they would export a plane that cost them more than $300m to develop, for.

On Lockheed also being the F22 producer, that is an advantage. They learned from the mistakes of F22, F35 has been designed as lower cost to maintain from the outset. Has the program been perfect? No. Is any military program? No.

On the open competition, aside from the fact that all international participants paid for one between Boeing and Lockheed, this is one of the reasons why we aren't doing another competiton:

While Burbage recently told Parliament’s defence committee Lockheed Martin envisioned $9.5 billion in work for Canadian aerospace companies as part of the global supply chain for the F-35, on Tuesday Burbage said even more work will flow north to Canada.

And Lockheed Martin’s estimates don’t even include maintenance of the aircraft over its lifespan, which Burbage said will be done almost exclusively by Canadian firms and could total more than $7 billion.

“As the program has become more predictable, and more opportunities have actually been awarded, the total value of the Canadian program has actually gone up,” Burbage said. “Our projections are we will exceed the plan that we projected in the past.”

Canada, as well as eight partner nations, is committed to providing our men and women in uniform the best equipment to take on the challenges of the 21st century,” wrote Defence Minister Peter MacKay in an e-mail Tuesday, adding the government’s figures have always been “consistent.”

“Our government’s commitment to procure 65 F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft as well as spares, infrastructure, weapons and simulators for $9 billion provides almost $12 billion worth of industrial benefits for Canadian industry.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/24...ed-martin-exec

But heck, why care about Canadian jobs producing for over a 1,000 of aircraft, when they could just work on 60, right?

[Thomas Hinderks]

As to maintenance

Check some comparables before complaining about 30hrs to 1flight hr, rather than quoting a link.

IIRC the Abrams Tank is about that and the Apache Helicopter is much higher

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^^OK:

On my coment that none are sold for marginal cost while they were state of the art to Canada, I stand by it.

I'm shocked...they were all state of the art when sold to other nations

On Lockheed also being the F22 producer, that is an advantage. They learned from the mistakes of F22, F35 has been designed as lower cost to maintain from the outset. Has the program been perfect? No. Is any military program? No.

So what new mistakes are they coming up with?

My quote from an above post with reference to your link:

So lets take a look the highest development risks
1) Software.....this deep into the game and not solved? That's a big worry
2) Pilot controls...oh come on, really...think it's tied to the soft ware issue?
3) V/STOL landing weight...who cares doesn't apply to us
4) Helmet mounted displays...these have been around a decade in highly advanced form, now there is an issue?

Then there's the engine issue

and so much for the less expensive to operate.

Which is why I repeatedly state:

Which is why I stand by what I have repeatedly said, here in post 162:
Quote:
But hey if we had clear mission requirements and an open competition on performance/mission compatibility/contract costs that was all public and transparent we may have real numbers and an aircraft that can actually meet the needs of the DND for the next 25years by which time we can start the whole disaster over again.

As to economic benefit, from post 143 which apparently you chose to ignore in bringing your latest argument.

We will lose the economic spin offs...yeah right same company, they will be happy to accommodate the same deal as they have done in past dealings, likely a little better as development costs on the F-22 have already been recovered thru the American programs.

So now that we have gone full circle at least twice in one afternoon I truly regret stepping back into this discussion...it's HSR/DT 2.0

but hey I gave things a 2nd chance...bye

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

but hey I gave things a 2nd chance...bye

Yeah I know Tom, it was a really credible coment of yours that we could buy F22's for $130 odd million based on US marginal cost with no R&D payback for the US, when I provided an actual source that is relevant that shows Japan can't even buy them for $250m, your 2nd chance is gone too.

At least I admit when I am wrong (like on the annual maintenance cost of F35).

[DiscoBandit]

Originally Posted by moahunter

At least I admit when I am wrong

Hahahahhahahahahaha!