Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Platforms on the Military

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
      My statement above is 100% correct. People are missing the forest form the trees.
      Originally posted by moahunter View Post
      ^lol, maybe not one of my better arguments then.
      and yet... you were so confident... 100% worth. Like I said, moaMath!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
          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?

          Comment


          • ^^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)?
            Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 03:55 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
              ^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.
              Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 27-05-2011, 03:47 PM.

              Comment


              • ^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
                Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 03:53 PM.

                Comment


                • 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.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                    [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.
                    Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 04:30 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
                        "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.
                        Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 04:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 04:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • ^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 AndrĂ© 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
                                Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 05:05 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X