FBWSome are failing to grasp that Canada is and has been a partner nation in the F-35 since the very beginning (1997). Choosing not to purchase the aircraft is akin to dropping out of the program. The investment from the government and private firms that have won contracts in the program will have gone to waste.
To date, Canada has invested $344.4 million ($288.7 million U.S.) as its share of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, and committed $77.9 million ($50 million U.S.) to Canadian aerospace companies through Industry Canada programs under the System Development and Demonstration Phase of the Program. As explained in the Summer 2014 update to Industry Canada’s report on Canadian Industrial Participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, Canadian companies have so far secured $587 million U.S. in contracts as a result of Canada’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program. This is an increase of $83 million U.S. over the results reported in the Fall 2013 report.
The Canadian companies with current contracts would not lose them, but future contracts most likely would not be forthcoming. Canadian companies stand to lose billions in potential contracts. It is unlikely that any of the competitors could offer a similar return comparable with the (relatively) small investment Canada has made.
FBWI think drone availability, and increased terrorism, will cause more nations to get some interceptors
No, because there is no point in buying a single mission aircraft when technology/sensors/budgets allow for multi role platforms. There is no market for a pure interceptor (discounting Russia), and there won’t be one. Therefore, there will be no nation pursuing a platform optimized for that role.
FBWat first, the F-35 was supposed to be it, but with a price tag more along the lines of the F-15 than the F-16, it’s nowhere near the affordability that was promoted when the program started
as for the rest, Spudman, in caze you missed it, Canada has no means (and never had it in its foreign policy) to go around the planet on itself, waging wars. It’s simply not what they, and 99% of countries on this planet, do. The few that consider it their right to go as they wish and bomb to stone age some god-forgotten place the existence of which most of their population didn’t even know about can be counted on the fingers of a hand (and you’ll have a few fingers left, btw). So no, they do not need to consider as a necessity to get an aircraft with first strike capabilities simply because they do not do that..
Funny, because in case you missed it…. The few you talk about include just about every NATO nation: Quick recount of the last 30 years of conflict involving Nato ( and aligned) nations.
Gulf War I- UK, France, Italy, US, Canada, S.A., Egypt, Oman, UAE, etc.
GWII- UK, US, Australia, Poland, Canada, Denmark, Spain,etc.
Operation Allied force- US, UK, Canada, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark,France etc.
Libya- US, UK, Italy, Canada, Belgium, France,Norway, Sweden,etc.
Afganistan-UK, US, Belgium, France, Italy, Canada,Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.
(and this is just a short list of participants for all the above)
So we can pretty much refute that argument right there, and notice, Canadian forces were involved in all. The one aspect where RCAF fast jets were not a part (and were not needed) was Afganistan.
FBWThe usual reasoned commentary from the fan community…
Usual sensationalism from journalists. Wow, all of the competitors can fly a QRA type mission? Imagine that, fighters able to fill that requirement. Now it’s interesting how they gloss over the part about “future growth”. That might be important considering Canada’s next fighter will probably serve 3+ decades.
@Oblig:
The defense of Canada territory and economy still has to take priority over joining a US bomb campaign at Iran.
Wouldn’t it be great if US had built a successor to F-5 for its allies ?
US still need a counter to Russias bombers, and there is no better counter than F-106X, for US & Canada both
They did build a successor to the F-5, the F-20 and Northrop couldn’t give it away.
Btw, the F-106 had one of the most useless weapon systems imaginable (unless you want to consider an unguided nuclear rocket that politically probably would not be used and four falcons an effective air to air load), and GCI. There is no F-106X for good reason: The F-16 ADF, followed by Amaraam equipped F-16’s were far more effective.
FBWAs a sniper pod will beinternally integrated, i do not see where is the issue. (Notice for once i talk in favour of F-35).
Question about EOTS btw, doese it have moving ground targets detection capability?
Now? I doubt it. The block 3f software will allow for full integration of image data. There was an article a bit back that spoke of DAS and EOTS working in conjunction to spot and track ground targets. Looking for it now….
Edit/addition: The APG-81 has GMTI, still looking for quote about DAS/ETOS. I believe it was Hostage who mentioned ground target tracking with DAS/ETOS.
FBWWhen we are talking about impressive combat victories and scores, is there any effort to separately identify F-series “own” impressive victories and “combined” victories?
Would be interesting to see the combat scores with and without the support of E-2/E-3 & other support assets which have been the critical element in combat and the game changers.
I think that would be a pointless exercise. U.S. fourth gen fighters were built with AWAC control and direction in mind. Moreover, as myself and many have pointed out: The record of the F-15 speaks more to the synergy of US doctrine, tactics, training, and C3 than platform superiority.
FBWI see spudman beat me to it. There’s no doubt that the unit costs on airframe, electronic, engine are coming down.
I too, would like to see the non-recurring costs itemized.
FBWLet me throw a wrench in here.
Is the USAF methodology flawed? Because the latest official USAF Budget released in February this year also says that the “Fly Away Unit Cost” for FY 2014 is almost twenty millions higher for the same aircraft acquired through the FY 2013 budget (126.859 millions in FY2013, 145.062 millions in 2014).
To be perfectly clear for everybody, the USAF official budget says something not too distant of what De Brigantis wrote.
The only diference between the USAF numbers and the ones declared by Deladova is that the USAF also considers the non-recurring costs (things like concurrency…).
While De Brigantis can be criticised by pilling every contract on the JSF and then present it has something akin to “acquisition cost” divided by numbers of aircrafts built in one year, the numbers from the JPO should also be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers of what the JPO declare are correct, but they have this tendency to do the opposite of De Brigantis, not declaring costs that are clearly related to production.Document here:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140310-041.pdfCheers
Think your reading that wrong
FY 2013
airframe+ electronics+ engine+ eco= 121.67 million
FY 2014
same= 120.147 million
You are looking a “Gross Weapon System Cost” which includes more.
Edit- no your not, I see what you are looking at. The “non-recurring costs” and “ancillary equipment costs” are higher for 2014.
Nonrecurring Cost includes such items as the U.S. Air Force share of Production Non-Recurring Tooling per the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development (PSFD)
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and eight partner nations cooperating in the production, sustainment, and follow-on development of the JSF; as well as funding for Diminishing
Manufacturing Sources (DMS) parts, concurrency engineering, technical assistance, and Cost Reduction Intiatives (CRI).
FBWFBW – Again with the “joke” line. You are one funny guy. Actually he’s publishing a late response from the program office.
Yes, first he had to adjust the contracts he included, next he included the JPO response then had to include
“While we concede that our approach may not perfect, it is the best given the information available, even though it results in informed estimates rather than in definitive figures”
So you have JPO telling him the Unit costs for each contract, and his dismissal of those. His major fail is trying to prove a rise in unit cost between LRIP contracts; as I’ve pointed out, and JPO pointed out, his methodology is flawed.
There really isn’t much more to say.
FBWI can spell out the best fit for Canada needs: an affordable long range high performance interceptor,
made in US and in US service 😎
…and in case you are unaware, F-35 has neither of these attributeshttp://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=233542&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1417161220
Well considering there is exactly one aircraft designed as a long range high performance interceptor still in service- Mig-31. You’ve just eliminated all other designs: perhaps Canada can ask Russia to buy some to defend it’s airspace from Russian incursions.
I think the RCAF knows what Canada needs. They will be replacing multi role fighters, with? Shocker! A newer multi role fighter.
FBWNo pun intended, just pasting an article about costs.
Nice halloweene, apparently you missed the two pages of discussion this article caused.
P.S. To those who defended his numbers, oops he is now on version 3 of his article as he’s had to correct it twice so far. It’s a bad joke.
JPO’s response to article:
The F-35 Joint Program Office does not agree with our approach, and questions its validity. “Deriving aircraft unit costs by ‘adding all lot-specific contracts announced by DoD and then dividing them by the number of aircraft in each lot’ does not result in the accurate cost of the aircraft,” JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova said in a Dec 03 e-mail. “In addition, it confuses readers and completely ignores the fact that the F-35 is not one aircraft — it is a family of 3 distinct aircraft.”
DellaVedova added that “defense contracts include the price for more items than just the cost of the aircraft. These items may include costs such as spare parts, flight simulators, tooling, support equipment, and manpower to maintain the aircraft.
“To derive the accurate cost of the aircraft, it is necessary to remove those additional items from the total and divide the recurring aircraft costs by the quantity in each lot. The following are the accurate aircraft unit costs by lot by aircraft variant.
Basically, exactly what I said.
FBWer, show me where I said the F-35 would be too “high end”…
From the first hand testers, it accelerates like a pig in transsonic (compared to stuff that’s been flying for the last 40 years), has quite a low top speed for an supposed interceptor and, overall, the only category in which it brings something others don’t is shape stealth (which others achieve through other means anyway)
First hand testers have said repeatedly that the acceleration is impressive, so your pulling that out of ur A**.
It is 8 seconds slower from mach .8 to mach 1.2 than the F-16 block 50 used as the benchmark.
A block 50/52 does not accelerate through trans sonic like a pig. It’s acceleration is competitive with most anything out there. The F-35 A/B has very good acceleration, the C version on the other hand, well not so much.
FBWInstantaneously or over time?
Instantaneous. Over time you’ve got a problem geolocating with one sensor if target is moving as well
FBWThe original F15A radar and engines were pretty comparable to the MiG23 as i understand it. I.e. not actually very good.
Same goes for the original weapon load out i believe.
Later F15A’s and the later models were a step change and truely were the king of the sky.
Same radar APG-63, the C/D added the PSP which allowed for software upgrades. Weapon loadout was the same, fuel capacity was increased, MTOW increased due to strengthened airframe. The “C” also had an expanded envelope from 7.33g to 9g (in a small part of the envelope).
FBWi dont want to hear it… the range issuing means you wouldnt know if the launch is from Afghanistan or Pakistan,
you’re claiming an IR sensor on EF cant geolocate an F-35 or an amraam launch at 20 miles,
yet the IR sensor on F-35 minus the focal lens can do it at 800 miles.illiteracy
A single IR sensor on ANY aircraft can’t geolocate Oblig, draw a triangle and think about it.
Sign In
