The "new" jets..any good???

[Kip Powick]

OTTAWA - An American analyst warns the costs of the new F-35 fighter jets are double what the federal government is estimating.

"Nobody on this Earth will fly away F-35 jets for $75 million." said Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

Wheeler said the costs are more likely $148 million per jet.

He was invited to Ottawa by the Rideau Institute, a left-leaning group that is opposed to most military spending, especially the purchase of the F-35, estimated at estimated $9 billion.

Wheeler said he is pro-military, just not in favour of wasting money on shoddy hardware, which is how he refers to the F-35 jet.

"It's sluggish, mediocre and doesn't replace the best jets."

Having worked for both Republican and Democrat senators on security issues and for the U.S. government accountability office, Wheeler is urging the U.S. - also part of the bulk purchase of the aircraft - to put the brakes on the plan.

"As an American, this program should be terminated immediately. It's unaffordable, and the performance is unacceptable."

Wheeler said an open competition should be conducted, similar to the one that produced the workhorse F-16 and F-18 fighter jets. "We can extend the lives of F-16s and F-18s and F-15s. We are under no duress from some foreign power whose air force we need to sweat blood about," he said. "We've got plenty of time."

Wheeler said the competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing to make the new F-35 merely produced a "technology demonstrator" and not a combat-ready prototype.

[AME]

He was invited to Ottawa by the Rideau Institute, a left-leaning group that is opposed to most military spending, especially the purchase of the F-35, estimated at estimated $9 billion.

I doubt he would have been invited if he wasn't going to say what they wanted to hear

[J.O.]

No, but does that make what he said wrong?

[av8tor]

No, but does that make what he said wrong?

No, and it doesn't make what he said "right" either. It's just his opinion, of which we all have one. My opinion is that Canada, more than a decade ago and together with perhaps a dozen or so other countries, made the decision to pool their resources and finance the design of, in accordance with the requirements of the different Air Forces, a new fighter aircraft. The F-35, today still in the flight test and development stage, is the result of those combined efforts thus far.

These dozen or so countries have all participated, from the beginning, financially and conceptually in the F-35. I fail to see how an "open competition" such as the one Mr. Wheeler proposes could be more "open" than what has transpired thus far.

No matter the aircraft or the program, there will always be the detractors of same. Let those whose job it is to determine what's needed for our Air Force do their job; one that is difficult enough without a bunch of biased, and probably uninformed critics jibbering, jabbering and arm-chair quarterbacking every decision made along the way.

Doug Moore

[Mitch Cronin]

No, and it doesn't make what he said "right" either. It's just his opinion, of which we all have one. My opinion is that Canada, more than a decade ago and together with perhaps a dozen or so other countries, made the decision to pool their resources and finance the design of, in accordance with the requirements of the different Air Forces, a new fighter aircraft. The F-35, today still in the flight test and development stage, is the result of those combined efforts thus far.

These dozen or so countries have all participated, from the beginning, financially and conceptually in the F-35. I fail to see how an "open competition" such as the one Mr. Wheeler proposes could be more "open" than what has transpired thus far.

No matter the aircraft or the program, there will always be the detractors of same. Let those whose job it is to determine what's needed for our Air Force do their job; one that is difficult enough without a bunch of biased, and probably uninformed critics jibbering, jabbering and arm-chair quarterbacking every decision made along the way.

Doug Moore

Hoooooo Boy, I'll second that!

Haven't we seen enough BS political meddling in DND aviation procurements, that has cost us all dearly? Enough already! It's time we bit some bullets, so to speak, and go for the best damned equipment we can afford.

If the brains among the brass have decided the F35 is the machine we need, let's have it.

I just hope to hell politics haven't fouled the decision making process so badly that it warps the results beyond reason.

I gotta say though, I don't understand that kind of coin for such a small beast... I've seen much less paid for brand new flying livingrooms, with all sorts of fandangled electronic gizmos on board... How is that kind of cost justified? Smaller production numbers?

[Kip Powick]

Let those whose job it is to determine what's needed for our Air Force do their job; one that is difficult enough without a bunch of biased, and probably uninformed critics jibbering, jabbering and arm-chair quarterbacking every decision made along the way.

Doug,

Therein lies the problem, those that are making the decisions are normally flying the BOD8D and are so far out of touch with reality in the field of operations that the decisions they make are nonsensical.

examples:

The Musketeer....for colors from the factory we could have 1) all white.... 2) red and white...... 3) blue and white......DECISION???.... paint them yellow cause that is what Chipmunks were painted in the 60's.....the cost over $5000.00 more per copy

The F-5...Had the pilots perfect "T" display cockpit but someone who said they have to have an ADF...... moved all the instruments around (Tacan and VOR were coming of age) and pilots cross check was now screwed up

The Tutor...Builder asked if CF wanted "jugs" for wing fuel...Hell no, someone said, (probably flew Harvard's out of MJ), the aircraft will never leave the MJ, PG and GM MFA. Later they found they needed the tanks...The cost?? Close to $80,000.00 per aircraft to re-plumb each bird.

Don't get me started on the screw ups with the C130

I have some faith in those that do the "what do we need" analysis but little faith in those that make the final decisions.

And lastly..we don't need, IMO, the F35. Another super expensive toy that will do little for Canada in the real world...If there ever was a real air to air combat operation, the operation would probably be done with drones and we all know that the USAF will be first into the fray...

Canada is known for turning out excellent pilots through our Military flying Schools,, we are world renowned for SAR and extremely well known for our humanitarian flights and world wide heavy transport.

Why should we spend billions on war-planes when our friends down south have more of that type of aircraft in one model that we have in our combined fleets.......Pure politics that could cost the taxpayer billions just so we can say " we have the hot toys too" !!!

I vote "no" ..............scrap the plan for the F35.

[conehead]

I think something like the Eurofighter Typhoon would have been more appropriate to our needs, but the unit cost for that was something like 90 million Euros. That's over $120 million per copy.

[av8tor]

Hey Kip,

I spent enough time in the military to know that ours isn't a perfect system and I'm more than well aware of the peculiar Canadian aversion to buying "off the shelf", as so aptly revealed by the examples you gave. I can even add to your list of disappointments; we may be world renowned for SAR but we still managed to screw up with the selection of the Cormorant, according to my buddy who spent 20 years flying the Lab in SAR.

But show me a better, different system. Canadians, through our government, decide if we want to have a military and subsequently what roles that military is required to perform. The military decides what equipment it requires to perform its various roles, and petitions the government for the appropriate funding. The funding is either approved or denied. You vote "no" and I vote "yes" for the F-35. As a matter of fact, as it indirectly pertains to the F-35, we all get to cast a vote in just a matter of a few weeks. It looks like the F-35 could go one way or the other and I can live with that - how 'bout you?

Cheers,

Doug

PS. I was flying the CF-5 when I got out and I gotta tell you, after flying the Voodoo for 3 years (talk about an instrument panel that required a screwed-up cross-check), the office of the CF-5 was a dream by comparison (complete with "T" instrument display by the way), ADF or no ADF.

[thinair]

I think it is agreed that Canadas politicians have a history of foulups when its comes Aerospace Technology.

What I dont like about the F35 is that its single engine.

Is there any substance to the Superhornet? Seems more cost effective.

[Moon The Loon]

Is there any substance to the Superhornet? Seems more cost effective.

We'll never know. It didn't go out to bid. Which is kinda what this thread is about??

[boestar]

Yeah isn't that the issue. Historically, in the US anyway, Each company supplied a Technology demonstrator aircraft to a competition. Each entrant was required to meet specific specifications to compete. Each aircraft was tested by a set of parameters set out by the division interested in the aircraft (army, navy, marine, airforce). The aircraft that best met all operational targets was selected for production while the others were shelved.

In Canada we were given one choice and no competition. Canada DOES need a replacement multi role fighter. Is the F-35 the best airframe for the job> not necessarily. WE will never know because the decision was made without due dilligence on the part of the government.

[Kip Powick]

............................................. Canada DOES need a replacement multi role fighter.......................

Just curious....why??

[Super 80]

Anyone find it a wee bit interesting that despite Lockheed operating a full-time JSF lobbying and PR machine they can't spare a single soul to come to the defense of the Conservatives and their estimates when Harper is more openly supportive of the F-35 than any US politician has been in a decade?

The latest statements by Harper are simply ridiculous, but if they are indeed true Lockheed is going to get a prostate exam administered by Roto-Rooter in Congress. Cross-subsidizing foreign sales of military hardware with the profits from sales to the Pentagon is criminally illegal and considered to be war profiteering.

[GDR]

It does seem to me that a great deal of the discussion concerning the cost is misleading. The media is throwing around figures that range from 16 billion to 30 billion. The only way that they could save that kind of money would be to not buy any new aircraft at all and scrap the F18's that we have.

A huge chunk of the cost is for operations and maintenance which is going to be there no matter what we buy, or even if we just continue operating the F18s we have now. The only saving is in the initial cost. The Super Hornet is about 60 million and from all accounts that I can see it looks like the F35 will run around 100 million. It seems to me that if we bought the Super Hornet then we could save 65 times 40 million or 2.6 billion. (I have to admit that would pay my pension for quite a period of time but we digress.)

I do like the fact that the Super Hornet is a twin and I`m not convinced that we need a stealthy aircraft. However there is no doubt that the F35 is a full generation ahead of the Super Hornet and as a result the F35 should be able to remain in service considerably longer for that reason. In addition the F35 should provide more economic benefits to Canadian industry. The greater degree of commonality with other NATO countries is also a factor.

In the end I have changed my mind on this and have come to the conclusion that over all the F35 is the best choice. However there are better minds than mine around here and I could be convinced to cnage my mind again.

Greg

Ran across this article which adds to the discussion.

What the F35 Brings to the Fight

[Moon The Loon]

Good and practical article, Greg. Notwithstanding the unique character of this modern bird, our form of government is about process. Process is about keeping government transparent. Keeping government transparent means the suppression of corruption (not an elimination, just the suppression). On the other hand, practical history with regards the F-18 decision saw a two-year lobby of government with a LOT of glad-handing and who-knows-what. The Mulroney years, if nothing else, raised the perception (illusion to some) of systemic graft and kick-backs.

So is it the latter part of my thinking the reason behind the unilateral and untendered decision to go the F-35 way given, in reality, the lack of any North American contender?

That is the question that needs to be answered in anyone's mind before coming to a decision on the rightness or wrongness of the decision to purchase.

To me, it really comes down to the current government's standing philosophy that the end justifies the means. No matter how much it backfires in their faces from time to time.

[Kip Powick]

Here is another DND/Canadian Government blunder....................

Do we need these as well..?..Why do some feel that we have to have this stuff ?? Think of the waste of money and really think hard about the reason for these toys ...I do and come up with....... We don't need the F35 and these as well. Tradition is hard to kill but the days of spending billions just in an attempt to keep up with the Jones should end.

Another Mistake

[GDR]

If you scroll down to the bottom of this article there is a debate on the merits of this purchase. One interesting thing that was pointed out is that we aren't committed to this for a couple of years yet and if the costs were to get out of control we can still eject.

Here is a quote from the debate.

We in Canada are in a different situation than the US. Our options are still open. We will watch the costs and when the time comes in a couple of years t sign a purchase contract, we will decide if they are still acceptable.

F35 Debate

[conehead]

Kip; I read that story about the torpedos this morning, and I would like to add a little bit; in the early '80s I took part in a live fire excercise off the coast of Puerto Rico. Part of what we were firing was those torpedoes from the Sea King. We fired about a half dozen, and each one of them immeadiately took a nose-dive for the bottom of the sea as soon as it hit the water! Duds! We took the rest back for a refund at the U.S Navy base where we had picked them up.

[Kip Powick]

A digrestion............

A few decades ago while in the CF I was doing a check ride on a young fellow when I was based in YOW flying the CV580. During the 'ride' I got a call from Ops to fly to YUL and pick up a bi-fold door that was purchased and modified, (had to be shortened by 6 inches), by a firm in Montreal, (I believe it was Atlantic Aviation), for one of our Squadron VIP CV580s . It was to be installed between compartments to give the highest ranking VIPs a bit more privacy.

We went and got the door, and I got the envelope with the receipt in it. Being snoopy, I looked at the receipt and saw that the cost of the door and the one cut across the top of the door to shorten it, ( door appeared to be "off the shelf" standard bi-fold door) cost DND a little over $1500.00.

After landing on YOW I personally took the bubble wrapped door up to our Engineering Officer as I didn't want to just leave the item in the aircraft as I had signed for it. To get through the door into his office, I off-loaded the wrapped door from my shoulder and pushed it into his office ahead of my body. I happened to notice a yellow sticker still attached to one of the bi-fold sections and took a closer look.

The sticker read ---Beaver Lumber - $88.98.

[thinair]

A digrestion............

A few decades ago while in the CF I was doing a check ride on a young fellow when I was based in YOW flying the CV580. During the 'ride' I got a call from Ops to fly to YUL and pick up a bi-fold door that was purchased and modified, (had to be shortened by 6 inches), by a firm in Montreal, (I believe it was Atlantic Aviation), for one of our Squadron VIP CV580s . It was to be installed between compartments to give the highest ranking VIPs a bit more privacy.

We went and got the door, and I got the envelope with the receipt in it. Being snoopy, I looked at the receipt and saw that the cost of the door and the one cut across the top of the door to shorten it, ( door appeared to be "off the shelf" standard bi-fold door) cost DND a little over $1500.00.

After landing on YOW I personally took the bubble wrapped door up to our Engineering Officer as I didn't want to just leave the item in the aircraft as I had signed for it. To get through the door into his office, I off-loaded the wrapped door from my shoulder and pushed it into his office ahead of my body. I happened to notice a yellow sticker still attached to one of the bi-fold sections and took a closer look.

The sticker read ---Beaver Lumber - $88.98.

That's "priceless"

In the Mulroney years it was frequently impressed upon us to spend more so that our budget would not be reduced for the next year.

This kind of thinking helped me expidite my departure from the CF, althought my experience there was invaluable and I am fortunate to have it.

[av8tor]

As fashionable as it is to beat up on DND, let's all please try and remember that profligacy is not restricted to DND alone. Read any of the Auditor General's Reports, it's all there and just about every department has its own blushing skeletons. If the government wants its military to stay in the fighter business - and apparently it does - then the F-18 is nearing the end of its life cycle. It requires replacement. The F-35 is the next generation and some projections have its life service going out to 2060.

In the earlier days of aviation history, there were numerous aircraft manufacturers: Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman, Hughes, Mcdonnell, Martin, Douglas, Hudson, Curtiss, Chance-Vought, the list of companies goes on and on and on and these are just USA companies. Many of these companies would simultaneoulsy compete for orders with the US military. Many aircraft were designed and developed, test flown but never put into service. Huge waste of resources. That's the way things worked then, and most of those companies don't exist today.

The huge expense that is associated with the development of a new aircraft today has eliminated most of the old aircraft companies. How many of them are around today? Boeing, Lockheed .... I suspect that is why Canada, together with its other partners, participated in the F-35 program. Not to waste money but to try and save money. Not to go it alone, but to collaborate. So while this idea of putting a new fighter aircraft replacement out for "competition" is the way it was done before, it's not the way today that the F-35 program has been advanced by the participating nations.

And certainly, alluding to the $1500 cost to DND for an $88.98 Beaver Lumber door hardly constitutes rationalization for walking away from our investment in the aircraft thus far.

Cheers,

[Kip Powick]

.....................

..........................And certainly, alluding to the $1500 cost to DND for an $88.98 Beaver Lumber door hardly constitutes rationalization for walking away from our investment in the aircraft thus far...........................

Cheers,

D.

Lets be very clear about one thing. I spent 28 years in the CF and feel I did my duty to the best of my ability. I would never 'bad-mouth" DND but you are certainly aware that DND is at the whim of the government of the day and woe to any serving CF member should he/she go public about the misuse of funds but we all know it happens in every profession. As well there will always be that cadre of "old-timers' at the top who feel that we have to have everything every other country has with respect to equipment. In this era, that is just not true.

My point is this, and no one can convince me differently,...............we do not need the F35....The F18s will be phased out in 2020 and we are supposed to get the F35 in 2016...infact the DND website has already assumes we are committed to the F35...I hope it never happens. If we HAVE to have a new "toy" then go for a cheaper piece of equipment but I would hope that the "brains" would see that it is time to phase out the whiz-bang birds.

As I asked further up the thread...........but no answer......why do we need the F35.. In Canada???

Further........why do we need torpedo capable submarines in Canada?? Are we going to use them to sink anyone we feel doesn't have the right to head north into the ice fields????

Time for a reality check for the government and for DND...The Cold War is over, best to get out of the post WW II mentality box.

And finally the story of the door was just that, a story of a door, slightly humorous, and was not meant to correlate the F35 to a $1400.00 over expenditure, nor cast dispersions on the outfit that gave me one of the best jobs in this country for over a quarter of a century.................and surely you knew that as well.

[av8tor]

Hey Kip,

I'm not trying to change your mind on the F-35. As you yourself have indicated: "no one can convince me differently". And I am sure that you are not alone in feeling the way you do about our need for fighters in general and the F-35 in particular. That's politics in Canada.

"Further", you ask, why do we need torpedo capable submarines in Canada? What does that question have to do with the F-35? Nothing obviously, but your question might have been better posed as: why do we need submarines, period. I, and perhaps many others might say we don't, but seeing as how the Navy does have 4 of them, recently acquired (but not yet seaworthy - now there's a story), then perhaps they should also have operational torpedoes. I mean, having submarines sailing around without torpedoes is like having Hercs flying around with their cargo ramps welded shut. If our country says that we need them, well then let's make sure at the very least that they're operational.

I understand - and recall, wink, wink, nudge, nudge - your penchant for telling stories. I'm not a good storyteller myself but I always enjoy hearing them. Those of us who served in uniform know full well the shortcomings of the military, and often laugh at those shortcomings but we also serve with pride in what we do and with a sense of purpose that most civilians cannot understand.

You're not in favor of the F-35, and perhaps torpedo-firing submarines too - and I get that. For you, justification of the need for the aircraft is lacking, as also seems your confidence in the "brains" who make the decisions.

Perhaps the conflict can be resolved with a new White Paper on Defence. And then, agree with the White Paper or not, we all can move ahead with a sense of purpose as opposed to one of censure.

Cheers,

Doug

[Super 80]

While strictly personal the thing that resonates the most with me is I know people working on the F-35 program who believe it is flawed beyond redemption and would support its cancellation which they consider to be inevitable.

[bluemic]

"..no one can convince me differently.."

Kip, I've always had a great amount of respect for your opinion (and your willingness to share it ) but a statement like the one above smacks of close-mindedness and intransigence - characteristics that I don't associate with you.

(Mind you, I also never dreamt you'd be the 'snoopy' type either; I mean, like, I seem to recall a story about snoopy people at dinner parties and medicine cabinets and something to do with marbles...)

But I'm NOT trying to say that the F35 is the fighter that Canada (not to mention a host of other nations) needs - I leave that decision to those far more qualified than I - nor am I arguing whether or not Canada should even have fighter planes or 'trashies' or torpedos or even soldiers.  However, I do think that if anyone in this country believes that we're going to rely on Uncle Sam to look after our defence (while we contribute little and use the money saved for other things) then we'd best be prepared for our benevolent "Uncle" to also have a major input into our country's affairs as well.

And of course, we all know how quickly us 'cheeseheads' rally 'round the flag with ideas like that!

But Kip, I could always be convinced differently...  

mic

Edited for spelling and to try and correct formatting - using my phone to type.