babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Tow away costs on F35 are escalating.

thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html

The multi-million dollar F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives want to purchase comes with all the accoutrements of a high-tech aircraft — everything, that is, except an engine.

The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.


___________

U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, who has also raised concerns about the F-35, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.

“If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered,” said Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy

Well well isn't that interesting. Thank you access to information. The gift that keeps on giving. This week should be a shit show for the cons. No wonder Pages numbers don't match the conservatives. How the hell do you calculate the cost of a jet when it has no engine and the government doesn't tell you that.




Comments

thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

Um bump or did I miss this in another thread?


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

The F35s have been discussed in a few threads already, and even your link in the OP has been posted elsewhere. But it's an important topic, and needs to be discussed - still. I expect P&P this week will discuss the lack of engines and weapons in this deal.


thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

LOL yeah Boom boom, you and I will be watching as Laurie Hawn and Evan try "to be fair" "and for the record" and ignore the fact we have a super hightech stealth paperweight for 75 million(if it comes in on budget).  P&P gets a good amount of my attention monday before the habs hopefully go 3-0 against the bruins.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I like the idea of having unarmed stealth gliders, actually. Laughing


Incorrect
Offline
Joined: Apr 10 2011

Who are these F-35 fighters supposed to be used against? The underequipped military forces of underdeveloped states who can't even defend against our f18s? If so, why don't we just but more f18s? Or is it perhaps going to go up against the best of advanced military powers such as Russia, China, or even Europe, whom we have extensive economic relationships with and whom we dare not challenge militarily?

Just who are the so called threats that these aircraft are designed to protect us from?

Apparently the main factor in making these aircraft so expensive is the stealth capability. Unfortunately stealth is not impervious to "obsolete" long band radar, as Serbia demonstrated over a decade ago when it successfully tracked and destroyed an f117 stealth fighter using Czech radar built in the 1960s.

So what exactly is the value of these aircraft?

If they really are necessary, why don't we look at the altenatives being offered for export by other states? Apparently Russia produces a superior stealth fighter, and probably at a fraction of the cost. 

Why can't Canada produce it's own aircraft? 

 

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Have you seen the Harper ads - strong military, ready to step up to the plate? He's transforming this country.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

@incorrect:

This issue has nothing to do with military role or capability.

It is about votes, and Harper sucking up to the Americans. That is all.

I am an ex military man, and feel pretty confident about my assertions here. Its G-d dam sad!

 


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Sounds like the F-35 is one of those American 'offers' difficult to refuse.'Interoperability' of the allied fleet and all that...Israel is also a big player in this we don't generally refuse anything to.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Scrapping+fighters+purc...


Incorrect
Offline
Joined: Apr 10 2011

If small states like Israel and Sweden can respectively produce their own main battle tanks and advanced fighter aircraft, why can't Canada? We would benefit from the support of an industrial base, and maintain control over our own supply chain, which is an important strategic factor. 

It's discouraging to watch Canada import it's advance military hardware, like some underdevelopped state.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

What is really sad is that there is no justification for the F35 purchase whatsoever. As a sovereign country, all we need to do here is protect our shorelines and have search and rescue capability - twin engine turboprops are probably our best bet, because they can be used anywhere in the country, in the Arctic, and on the coastlines.


melovesproles
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2005

Yeah I 100% agree Boom Boom.  These jets are for NATO missios strafing third world countries.


arteest
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2011

We could buy the Saab Gripen instead. It's cheaper and it flies great in the Arctic. Besides, it's prettier. :)


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

There are many alternatives. We are rushing into this, and frankly the decision has already been made.

It's so frustrating watching this. I am inclined towards the Super Hornet, mainly because of the second engine. That by the way is why we bought the F18 in the first place. I can't' understand where the Chief of the Air Staff and his group are on this. It mystifies me. They know the score. Can't understand it.


Incorrect
Offline
Joined: Apr 10 2011

I think that the F35 might simply be a wedge issue for the Conservatives. They need to appeal to the pro military constituency that represents a significant part of their support base. The Conservatives appeal to their sense of masculinity and need to express and project power. What better way to keep them satiated than with expensive military hardware and missions to use them in?

Harper never talks about the possibility of examining other aircraft options. He frames the selection of the F35 as one of having jets or not having jets, and never discusses the possibility of alternative jets. Thus, he is able to frame his political competitors as those who would 'emasculate' the Canadian military by denying it access to 'necessary' equipment. 

 


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

@incorrect:

I really do respect what you right and I appreciate your insight. But I think you are giving Harper way too much credit. I don't think that reptile brain can think with that much sophistication, lol.


thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

Not sure what is behind this stupid idea. Wait to see who gets a job at lockheed would be my bet. AC I would say the superhornet is a much better craft and it is interoperable with the US navy...the one we deal with a lot considering we use the navy in these thrid world conflicts. Twin engine 45 million can use the current fleet of in air refueling planes, is in production so costs are fixed. Also has better flight performance than the F35...it makes no sense. We could have 65 F18 SH and still get a flotilla of ships and search and rescue for less than the asking price of the 65 F35's, nicknamed the "Moneypit" or should be.

If we want to be warmaking at all. Where is a damn white paper for going forward? There is little reason to be excited about this purchase. To be honest you would be better off with the real F35, the russian one- Sukhoi Su35. 100 million cheaper and a better craft than anything we produce. Its being sold around the world to all militaries. Its pretty much the AK 47 of the sky.  The T-50 Pak will be even better so we are buying something in the possible future(who knows when it will finally start pass anything) when the F35 is already outgunned, out maneuvered  and out teched by our friends and "enemies" by stuff that is in production right now.

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

If Harper is returned as PM in yet another minority government, can the Opposition force the government to consider an alternative to the F35? Laurie Hawn seems pretty determined that this is the only aircraft the Cons are interested in. Maybe Laurie Hawn is the problem?


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

If the F-35 is unaffordable for the U.S., can Canada afford it?

AFP wrote:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The cost of building the F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, is "unaffordable in its current version and must be reviewed, the Pentagon's top acquisition official said Thursday.

"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Ashton Carter, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

"That's our forecast for how much the aircraft's going to cost.

"Said differently, that's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. And that's unacceptable. It's unaffordable at that rate."

The cost of the plane has jumped to $385 billion, about $103 million per plane in constant dollars or $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars, said Christine Fox, the Defense Department's director of cost assessment and program evaluation.

Republican Senator John McCain called the figure "truly troubling," considering the original price was $69 million per airplane.

"The facts regarding this program are truly troubling," said McCain. "No program should expect to be continued with that kind of track record, especially in our current climate," said McCain.

"It seems to me we have to start at least considering alternatives"

... An additional appropriation of $4 billion brings the cost of development of the plane to $51 billion,...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110519/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35

[Bolding added.]


Uncle John
Offline
Joined: Feb 8 2008

The job of enforcer for the interests of global capital and "democracy" can no longer be borne by the United States alone. Other countries such as Canada, France, and Germany will have to shoulder more of a burden for when it is necessary to take military action against recalcitrant peoples and their "regimes". Canada is now a net investor abroad (i.e. more Canadian money is invested abroad than foreign money is invested here), so Canada now in its own way is an Imperal country.

Therefore it may very well be that Canada will be able to "afford" things the US cannot.


thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

Well perhaps we should stop being Canada World Police and go back to being that nice country that use to actually help other nations.


notional
Offline
Joined: May 2 2011

Consider Canada's position on water rights, the tarsands, the way Harper fails to address slights and putdowns from the US beyond what is needed to placate outraged Canadians, how much all that has cost our reputation with the UN and the rest of the world, and his alignment with the Republican's. These jets are in keeping with the direction we're going in. I get the idea that Harper's sold our soul to the devil and in typical Harper fashion, has neglected to reveal his agenda to Canadians.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

thorin_bane wrote:

Well perhaps we should stop being Canada World Police and go back to being that nice country that use to actually help other nations.

Being a World Police, superpower and an Empire - the military-industrial complex, the vast size of its military, all the overseas bases, all the wars of Empire the U.S. is fighting, is what has caused/is causing the financial destruction of the U.S. and the end of the American Empire.


Kanada2America
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2009

Agreed. The American Empire is dying slowly but don't be too quick to write off the American "Nation". Because those who are tied in extremely closely with the American "Nation" will go down too if the ship of state fails. That means if America goes down, so does Canada.

Too many economic and military ties. Too much crossborder movement and waayyy too much dependence on America in a lot of sectors.

It's nice and quiant to think about Canada as some island of power unto its own, but it ain't so. Washington issues the orders, Ottawa follows them.


Uncle John
Offline
Joined: Feb 8 2008

And one of those orders is for us to buy the F35s under US command and control.


Kanada2America
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2009

I'm not sure that was one of the orders, but how hard could it have been to make a sale with Peter MacKay, Laurie Hahn and Stephen Harper listening to the crocidile tears from these poor generals in the Canadian military crying the blues about being underfunded and overused?

I don't even know why Canada bought F-18's. What the heck have they been used for other than the "ooohhs and ahhhs" at airshows?

Heck the American military will come up here and do that for you anytime.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Kanada2America wrote:

Agreed. The American Empire is dying slowly but don't be too quick to write off the American "Nation".

Absolutely.

As far as the American Empire is concerned, "It's later than you think."

After the fall of the American Empire, I see the U.S. republic reverting to a policy of "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" as the Founders originally envisioned.


Kanada2America
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2009

It would be nice to see all that power and all those resources used in a positive way Frmrsldr. Yes it is later than what many think. A debt load like $14 trillion is nothing to sniff at. Unemployment, poverty. It's a sad reflection of the American state. So much waste for such petty greedy reasons.


Kanada2America
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2009

And wait for the waffling... cue Laurie Hahn and here it comes, probably on Sun tv:

The costs of the f-35 went up significantly because we decided to upgrade them with engines. You see we didn't know then, what we know now. We thought that other countries would buy them without engines. You see? Now we realize that having engines is an important part of the bidding process.

And besides that, they told us we would get a good trade-in for our old f-18.


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

The best thing that indeed could happen is for the entire F35 program to be scrapped, and a realistic procurement program started up - with reasonable alternatives evaluated.

 

ETA: funniest quote I've ever read about the F35:

 

The JSF really is a miracle of modern military contracting - it can maneuver like a F-18, has the range of a F-16, is about as stealthy as a F-15, and costs the same as all three combined.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments