Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Platforms on the Military

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

  • DiscoBandit
    replied
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    At least I admit when I am wrong
    Hahahahhahahahahaha!

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    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).
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^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
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 27-05-2011, 05:32 PM. Reason: additioinal information...bye

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    ^^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?
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-05-2011, 05:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    ^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
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    ^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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Hinderks
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X