Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Signals.Cpl

F-35 Purchase

Recommended Posts

There's nothing that indicates that any 6th gen fighter currently in the early stages of design would be up for export.

Very true.....it will be like the Raptor, can't buy them for love or money either. More the reason to build one don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sixth gen fighter is supposed to be available by 2026, right as soon as we get our last soon to be purchased F35. Then we can be perfectly lined up to buy obsolete parts at a discount!

Yes and as soon as we start designing our own aircraft we will already be 5 decades behind the competition, by the time we design, build and are able to field an aircraft comparable to the F35 our aircraft will be obsolete because the 7th generation aircraft will be out and we would need to rebuild the Air Force from the ground up because our planes have been falling out of the sky in ever increasing numbers.

The F35 is the best choice of the aircraft we are allowed to look at, and it will be out of date the day it is delivered. This program sucks, and I for one don't want to pay for it.

But you will be willing to pay 100 billion to design and build 65 aircraft and then add the other 30 tho 40 billion for upkeep? Instead of paying 35 or 40 billion throughout the life of the aircraft we will end up paying 3 or 4 times as much with no noticeable benefit.

Most folks on here just want pretty airplanes to play with. I simply can not believe we are arguing about buying war planes from other countries and complaining how much it costs.

Most of the people complaining don't complain because of the cost of the aircraft itself but of the upkeep cost something that would not change for the better if we designed our own aircraft.

Of course its expensive, what should you expect, that it will be cheaper to buy them from far away or build them here? Either we wake up and do it in house;

And we spend 10 to 15 years researching, designing and testing this aircraft and then what? We buy our 65 planes and shut down production?

save money,

By investing 100 billion or more to set up, research and develop the aircraft before the cost of the aircraft and upkeep for the next 40 years? Instead of paying 9 billion for the total package you thing spending 100+ billion is saving money...

create jobs,

What happens when we get our fighters and no one wants to purchase our overpriced product?

build national pride and unity in common effort

How would investing virtually the entire DND budget for new equipment in a replacement aircraft build national pride? We would end up with shiny new planes that serve no purpose because they are obsolete before we even get them delivered, then we have this infrastructure and manpower that we don't need anymore what happens then?

or we can politically divide ourselves;

You think this would unite us? This is an issue used by the opposition to show how bad the conservatives are never mind that they are lying and twisting in order to "prove" that. Building the fighters in Canada means that we will invest 2 to 3 times the money in research and development realize that maybe it is not going to work out and buy an American made aircraft anyway.

refuse to hire Canadians, refuse to invest in Canadian industry

For what purpose would you want to invest billions of dollars in to an industry that will likely collapse in 10 years if not earlier?

,and refuse fair value to tax paying citizens.

Paying 9 billion for the aircraft as a package v. paying 100+ billion for the aircraft as a package...hmmmm I wonder which is the fair value for the tax paying citizen.

I keep saying this, but where is the fire? Where is the war? Where is the immediate threat to public safety?

Should we wait for a fire to invest in a fire truck?

The CF18 is scheduled for replacement in 2020, but current updates will take the airframe beyond 2030.

So? Should we maintain obsolete equipment so that we can purchase the next generation aircraft and receive it about the same time it becomes obsolete?

In less than ten years the Americans went to the moon from its first manned flight.

And it took quite the investment to do it...right?

We have 18 years to design and build an airplane here, that is a fact. WE think it is going to cost more than 40 billion dollars for the CF35 program, and we are being told that we can build a Canadian Arrow here for less money.

No WRONG! The F35 costs 40 billion WITH upkeep and manpower the aircraft themselves cost less than 9 billion dollars, so unless you know someone who can design and build a comparable aircraft for less than 9 billion then we are SOL and need the F35s. We can design the aircraft and then we will still need to maintain it and operate it and thats where the 30 billion comes in. You should familiarize yourself with the cost of the aircraft before you suggest we sink hundreds of billions on an adventure we don't need.

That leaves only one question, why procure defense products outside of the country when we can save money buying from inside the country.

Because we can't save money buying from inside Canada unless someone has come up with a way to build and design a comparable aircraft to the F35 for less then 9 billion... hell for less than 20 billion and it might still be worth considering but anything above that is not worth consideration.

If this damned argument is about money, then lets make it about the money.

The whole F35 investment spend by us to build 65 planes or we buy 65 planes from the US, invest some more of the money we would use to build domestic aircraft on improving military equipment and then throw the other hundred or so billion in to social programs, healthcare or paying downy he debt...

The less money spent, the less debt we have to cover.

Unfortunately you are suggesting we spend many times the cost of the F35 in order to build our own aircraft... something not worth doing if it is only for our 65 planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, Im told that the F-35 will be the last manned Military fighter.... I would simply LOVE to find out where you recieved your exotic info..

"At a recent meeting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the U.S. air force’s combat command, provided more details on the plane his organization wants to buy. The sixth generation aircraft would not be a drone and instead would be flown by a pilot. The air force would need the new plane around 2030 and it will be equipped with what he called “game-changing capability,” he noted". http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/12/16/should-canada-skip-the-f-35-and-wait-for-a-sixth-generation-fighter-aircraft/

There are lots of things to read.....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true.....it will be like the Raptor, can't buy them for love or money either. More the reason to build one don't you think?

I'm not sure we have the industry it takes to build a 6th gen weapon system better than the Americans can build. The trouble with the air combat biz is that the reward for 2nd best = a crater. I'm all for it if we could do it...but I'm doubtful as it isn't as simple as just building an aircraft. How will it refuel, for example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we have the industry it takes to build a 6th gen weapon system better than the Americans can build. The trouble with the air combat biz is that the reward for 2nd best = a crater. I'm all for it if we could do it...but I'm doubtful as it isn't as simple as just building an aircraft. How will it refuel, for example...

We can build one, with substantial investment of both time and money and end up with an obsolete aircraft as soon as its coming out of the production line only this time it will have cost over a billion to build 1 aircraft and thats before upkeep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's would

We can build one, with substantial investment of both time and money and end up with an obsolete aircraft as soon as its coming out of the production line only this time it will have cost over a billion to build 1 aircraft and thats before upkeep.

That would be my guess and why bother if it is going to be replaced by an unmanned aircraft. If anyone thinks there are a lot technical difficulties getting the F-35 up and running, just wait for the first unmanned project. They ain't seen nothin yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can build one, with substantial investment of both time and money and end up with an obsolete aircraft as soon as its coming out of the production line only this time it will have cost over a billion to build 1 aircraft and thats before upkeep.

It's the "little things"....like what will it be armed with? US weapons like the M61 and AIM-120? Or are we going into the heavy weapon making business for ourselves? Sweden, a province sized country with its own aircraft, managed to pull off aircraft like the Gripen only because of decades of work on previous models like the Draken and Viggen. We would have had to keep-up the Arrow as a desirable export machine and built newer models off of what we learned. Didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the "little things"....

No kidding...things like AESA radar, avionics, nav, comms, IFF, engines, fire control, countermeasures, target designators, and even ejection seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding...things like AESA radar, avionics, nav, comms, IFF, engines, fire control, countermeasures, target designators, and even ejection seats.

Oh I know...the list goes on for several pages. But, folks still view these machines as hopped-up Spitfires. Little thought is given to what actually goes into a machine that can do Mach 2.5+ and pull 11gs without breaking apart....all while doing the Tommy Cruise to those "MiG-28s".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the "little things"....like what will it be armed with? US weapons like the M61 and AIM-120? Or are we going into the heavy weapon making business for ourselves? Sweden, a province sized country with its own aircraft, managed to pull off aircraft like the Gripen only because of decades of work on previous models like the Draken and Viggen. We would have had to keep-up the Arrow as a desirable export machine and built newer models off of what we learned. Didn't happen.

Hense the substantial investment of time and money, something that might be worth it if we were to say pursue this as a business opportunity but knowing Canada we would throw a hundred billion down the drain and some politician will swoop in and say we are peacekeepers and we don't need to be making weapons and the project will be closed. I think we could do it but it will mean that each aircraft might be over a billion if not two billion since we are starting from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to do such a thing we need to cut the fuzzy feel good crap and get serious about becoming a proper arms manufacturer. Otherwise it will just be a waste of time and a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the problem, we might decide to do so now but in 5 years someone will cry that we are peacekeepers not warmongers and the whole thing will be shut down. My personal view is that the US has the expertise but also the consistency something we need to be able to rely on, in 20 years we will be able to get the same spare parts and expert support something we cannot guarantee in Canada because of the misguided beliefs of some political parties and of many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually believe peacekeeping works?

Canada needs replacement jets, thats not the question, the question is which one.

Parinoia runs rampant. Or is it delusion? We need these jets like I need hemeroids. What is it with you people? We are on the one hand trying to balance a budjet in trying times and you seem to think this is a good thing. Why don't you move to the US? There are many alternatives out there at much better prices. Plus we aren't saddled to the US in the process. Get out of the paradigm. Think global. I don't know how bright you all are but can you imagine that the US would sell something they couldn't override with a computer code? They are losers on their way out and grasping for anything and you want to hang on to their coat tails? Good for you.:Loser.

t

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to do such a thing we need to cut the fuzzy feel good crap and get serious about becoming a proper arms manufacturer. Otherwise it will just be a waste of time and a lot of money.

Are you for real? What in the hell would we want to do that for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... They are losers on their way out and grasping for anything and you want to hang on to their coat tails? Good for you.:Loser.

LOL! And Canada is a winner on its way up ! Today Buffalo...tomorrow...zee world !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F35 project has cost Canadians much money already. It is going to cost lots more whether the F35 is the aircraft selected or not. This program is not only very expensive is also doomed to experience cost overruns at tax payers expense. Lets deal with the reality here.

National defense is something best not left up to foreign power and control, that is a fact. The problem we now face highlights this nicely. Canada does not require, nor do citizens desire that the nation becomes a net arms exporter. On the surface that precludes the existence of a domestic military industrial complex, or so the paradigm would be perceived anyway. The truth is that all of that infrastructure was once in place to built the Arrow in the first place, and its still there. To prove it, we have the current case in point where the proponents of the F35 program elude to the millions of dollars worth of contracts being landed in Canada for the program. This little reality when put into perspective tends to alter the facts on the table. Canada can and does sub-contract highly complex systems for manufacture here.

Another F35 proponent argument is that Canada cannot even design such an aircraft to replace the CF18 fleet. The truth is we already did, then we built it 53 years ago, and the Arrow flew faster and higher the the CF18 does today. There is no doubt that the airframe design is 53 years old, and that all manufactured aircraft components today are made with different materials and that renders virtually every previously designed part obsolete. The aircraft does have to be redesigned, but not completely from scratch because a vast majority of the work is upgradeable, and in fact a majority of that work has already been done. To prove that point we have a company that has submitted a proposal to produce the aircraft. This proposal has costing and production formulas built into it.

Another proponent argument is that the production would cease once the RCAF order was complete therefore rendering the companies bankrupt. This is simply nonsense, because by that time we would be looking for a new aircraft to replace the ones we just bought. Fighter jets take weeks to be completed not hours or days. In addition we just don't need thousands of them, merely a fraction at best. Since the scale of the production order determines the net cost, Canada is always doomed to pay more when buying outside of the country. With respect to the industry profit and a question of its long term financial viability in domestic terms, provided that the industry was designed as a low volume production from the beginning then there is the potential for viability. Designing the industry to compete in international markets is another story entirely requiring exponentially higher investment, that is not the purpose of the effort but merely a side opportunity. The point is that small volume production is possible in this very unique niche market, a high tech cottage sized industry is the direction we need to travel. Small companies, making small components, in small numbers with small contracts spread out across the nation. We should be thinking smaller and smarter instead of bigger and dumber.

So we can design, and build what we need here. The next question is can we do it in the time frame desired, and the company that plans to build the competitor to the F35 claims it can do it within the time constraints provided by the Federal Government. In summary we have the option of choosing a Canadian made alternative at less cost to the tax paying citizen or a foreign product at more cost to the tax paying citizen.

There have been posts with respect to weapons systems that indicate we would have to design and build weapons systems that were compatible with NATO forces. Weapons systems are nearly as complex as airframes, another entirely different effort that this nation does NOT need to get into. I would suggest that the Canadian made aircraft be designed to accept NATO spec weapons, end of argument from my side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can design, and build what we need here. The next question is can we do it in the time frame desired, and the company that plans to build the competitor to the F35 claims it can do it within the time constraints provided by the Federal Government.

No, this is not practical given the same cost constraints. If Canada wishes to spend far more money per delivered aircraft, then anything is possible, but not within the required timeframe either. The Avro Arrow was designed as a one-trick-pony, high speed interceptor, with some outside help. The Arrow's design cannot be repurposed or freshened up to be a modern, multi-role strike fighter, which is the mission design requirement.

In summary we have the option of choosing a Canadian made alternative at less cost to the tax paying citizen or a foreign product at more cost to the tax paying citizen.

This same option existed in the early 80's, and Canada chose to license build an American aircraft, which solved the political problem for tax paying citizens. Those aircraft should have joined Sea Kings in aviation museums around Canada, years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you for real? What in the hell would we want to do that for?

Then forget about designing and building our own F-18 replacement. It's just not feasible unless we do.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National defense is something best not left up to foreign power and control, that is a fact. The problem we now face highlights this nicely. Canada does not require, nor do citizens desire that the nation becomes a net arms exporter. On the surface that precludes the existence of a domestic military industrial complex, or so the paradigm would be perceived anyway. The truth is that all of that infrastructure was once in place to built the Arrow in the first place, and its still there. To prove it, we have the current case in point where the proponents of the F35 program elude to the millions of dollars worth of contracts being landed in Canada for the program. This little reality when put into perspective tends to alter the facts on the table. Canada can and does sub-contract highly complex systems for manufacture here.

1) There is a difference between subcontracting a repair and maintenance contract to a Canadian company and building an aircraft from the ground up. You can take your car to the mechanic but that does not mean that mechanic can design and build a car for you.

2)Even if we had all of the designs and schematics for every component in the Avro Arrow this still leaves us with an interceptor with 1950's equipment while we need a multi role aircraft in 2012, to take this and redesign it we need to bring it up to 2012 standards while designing and incorporating new equipment in to an aircraft that was designed for one specific duty.

3)We need to control the Aspects of our national defence that are within our means of control, designing an aircraft and helicopters and tanks and LAV and pistols and rifles gets too much, the US can do it all but they have a defence budget over 30 times ours on a good year. We need to get the best equipment for the money we have rather than fantasize about a project that will never work simply because of the costs involved.

Another F35 proponent argument is that Canada cannot even design such an aircraft to replace the CF18 fleet.

We can design an aircraft as good or better than the F35, the question is at what price? Is it worth going on our own when the price per aircraft will be in the billions as opposed to being at 250million?

The truth is we already did, then we built it 53 years ago, and the Arrow flew faster and higher the the CF18 does today.

It goes faster and higher? Great then what? It is an interceptor from 1950's and all the electronics on board is now obsolete, the US went to the moon using a computer that was significantly less powerful than even the cheapest computer of today while the Avro Arrow probably has a main computer about as powerful as my digital watch if that...

There is no doubt that the airframe design is 53 years old, and that all manufactured aircraft components today are made with different materials and that renders virtually every previously designed part obsolete. The aircraft does have to be redesigned, but not completely from scratch because a vast majority of the work is upgradeable, and in fact a majority of that work has already been done. To prove that point we have a company that has submitted a proposal to produce the aircraft. This proposal has costing and production formulas built into it.

Care to post the costs that the company proposes for the design, research and construction of the fighter to be as good or better than the F35?

Another proponent argument is that the production would cease once the RCAF order was complete therefore rendering the companies bankrupt. This is simply nonsense, because by that time we would be looking for a new aircraft to replace the ones we just bought. Fighter jets take weeks to be completed not hours or days. In addition we just don't need thousands of them, merely a fraction at best. Since the scale of the production order determines the net cost, Canada is always doomed to pay more when buying outside of the country.

So you think we are doomed to pay more when the US build 3,000 F35's and we will pay less when we have to design and build from scratch only 65 aircraft? Research divided over 3000 aircraft or research divided upon only 65 aircraft which would be cheaper?

Besides even if we assumed we would be producing only 10 aircraft a year that means we will have all fighters ready and deployed in 7 years(accounting for some delay) that still places us 33 years before the aircraft have to be replaced, now do you suggest that we invest in this industry for 33 years in order to have the next fighter ready?

With respect to the industry profit and a question of its long term financial viability in domestic terms, provided that the industry was designed as a low volume production from the beginning then there is the potential for viability.

The main cost is not the production, the main cost is the research and development of the aircraft, just like the main cost of the F35 is not the aircraft itself but the pilot, aircrew, support staff, infrastructure etc...Setting up the production line to accommodate only our order means we will invest 100 billion or more in research and then we will split it over 65 aircraft so the total cost would be lets say 100 billion plus the 30 billion for the above mentioned cost to any aircraft we buy and suddenly the cost is at least 130 billion instead of 35 or 40 billion, what we ended up with was an aircraft that most likely will be inferior to the F35 at a much greater cost and once the research is done we shut down for what 20 years until we need to replace it?

Designing the industry to compete in international markets is another story entirely requiring exponentially higher investment, that is not the purpose of the effort but merely a side opportunity.

Research costs money, the more you sell the cheaper it gets... you spend 100 billion on research and sell 3,000 aircraft the research is divided on the 3,000 aircraft, if you spend 100 billion on research and development but only build 65 aircraft the cost per aircraft before the cost of building it is factored in will bring the overall cost to a little over 1.5 billion dollars per aircraft rather than spreading the cost to a little over 33million per aircraft...

The point is that small volume production is possible in this very unique niche market, a high tech cottage sized industry is the direction we need to travel. Small companies, making small components, in small numbers with small contracts spread out across the nation. We should be thinking smaller and smarter instead of bigger and dumber.

Ok you solved the problem who is to build it, but who will research all the components? Who will field the 100billion or more to research and develop all the components within the aircraft?

So we can design, and build what we need here.

At what cost? And will it be worth it?

The next question is can we do it in the time frame desired, and the company that plans to build the competitor to the F35 claims it can do it within the time constraints provided by the Federal Government.

Same time frame? Great so what is their price tag? And how does it compare to the F35? We don't need a paperweight made Canada, we need an aircraft that can do a dozen different jobs if they are promising to design an aircraft based on the 1950's design at the same timeframe as the F35, either the aircraft will be obsolete and substandard by the standards of the 1970 let alone 2012 or it will be prohibitively expensive.

You think that one Canadian company can research and develop an aircraft to rival the F35 in the same timeframe at a fraction of the cost for only 2.2% of the order? Is there anything to back that up or is it the claim of a company that wants our money?

In summary we have the option of choosing a Canadian made alternative at less cost to the tax paying citizen or a foreign product at more cost to the tax paying citizen.

You keep saying this, but I have not seen how much an Avro Arrow 2.0 will cost and how it will compare to the F35, we can build a Sopwith Camel probably for 50,000 dollars a unit but would it do anything it is expected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parinoia runs rampant. Or is it delusion?

For you I would say its a little bit of a and a little bit of b combined with c(lack of knowledge) and d(lack of situational awareness)...

There are many alternatives out there at much better prices.

Which once? Aircraft that are as good or better than the F35? And aircraft that will not require the 40 years worth of manpower and infrastructure to support them? You can cut the price of the aircraft in half and that would cut a few of billion at most for an aircraft that has worse capabilities than the F35.

Plus we aren't saddled to the US in the process.

Who would you want to buy the aircraft from? Russia? China? France? Sweden?

I don't know how bright you all are but can you imagine that the US would sell something they couldn't override with a computer code?

Even if that were true, who would you want to control that "code"?

They are losers on their way out and grasping for anything and you want to hang on to their coat tails? Good for you.:Loser.

Loser? What are you 12?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is not practical given the same cost constraints. If Canada wishes to spend far more money per delivered aircraft, then anything is possible, but not within the required timeframe either. The Avro Arrow was designed as a one-trick-pony, high speed interceptor, with some outside help. The Arrow's design cannot be repurposed or freshened up to be a modern, multi-role strike fighter, which is the mission design requirement.

This same option existed in the early 80's, and Canada chose to license build an American aircraft, which solved the political problem for tax paying citizens. Those aircraft should have joined Sea Kings in aviation museums around Canada, years ago.

This in fact is my point entirely.....should we not learn from our mistakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche !

A good thing in the end. The Arrow was huge. Tu-28 huge. Nice target....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus...for those interested. The Fiddler (aka Tu-28) was the Russian's version of the Arrow. Note: not a copy...but a large high speed interceptor. It could cruise for over 3,000 miles at military throttle. Its huge Ash missiles were to perform the same duty as the Genie missile to be carried by the Arrow....knock down incoming bombers.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/tu-28.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×