Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[MarchHare]

Did Ignatieff say that he would cancel the purchase of replacements for CF-18 fleet altogether or just that he would open up bidding to competing aerospace firms rather than sole-sourcing the contract to Lockheed Martin?

[Edit]
Just read the link from earlier in this thread. Ignatieff is in favour of having a competitive bidding process for new fighters, not cancelling the order completely.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Did Ignatieff say that he would cancel the purchase of replacements for CF-18 fleet altogether or just that he would open up bidding to competing aerospace firms rather than sole-sourcing the contract to Lockheed Martin?

He implied that he would cancel the deal and reopen the bidding.

Its a dumbass move considering that we invested in the development of the fighter and are reaping benefits.

Cancelling and re-opening would probably also delay a purchase for another decade under the Liberal's and we'd get a half a$$ replacement fighter.

to me if you have a small airforce, then you need as many force multipliers as you can get. You get the best force multipliers in a fifth generation fighter.

When you consider that the Russians, French, Chinese, Indian's and Japanese are all pursuing 5th generation fighter technology then why in the hell would you buy something thats already well into becoming obsolete.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Did Ignatieff say that he would cancel the purchase of replacements for CF-18 fleet altogether or just that he would open up bidding to competing aerospace firms rather than sole-sourcing the contract to Lockheed Martin?

[Edit]
Just read the link from earlier in this thread. Ignatieff is in favour of having a competitive bidding process for new fighters, not cancelling the order completely.

Who else can competitively bid?? Boeing and Lockheed were the only competent bidders and they already both had their kick at the cat. He's vowing to cancel the F35 and go back to the drawing board. Are we supposed to follow the fine Liberal tradition of twiddling our thumbs for years while the cost to replace climbs exponentially?

[Sluggo]

Funny that a Fiscally conservative mayor was elected in Toronto only days ago.

[DemolitionCat]

Eurofighter Typhoon vs F-35, who knows?

Until we have real icebreaker capability and the force to manage the Northwest Passage, no party should be claiming real advances on security.

The jets are nice and all, but it would be nice to see the PMO try and shut up to let Foreign Affairs get some work done on the Arctic front.

[DemolitionCat]

Funny that the Hamburglar was elected mayor of Toronto.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

Eurofighter Typhoon vs F-35, who knows?

Until we have real icebreaker capability and the force to manage the Northwest Passage, no party should be claiming real advances on security.

The jets are nice and all, but it would be nice to see the PMO try and shut up to let Foreign Affairs get some work done on the Arctic front.

Why would we buy a jet that took its maiden voyage 16 years ago. That means by the time we took possesion of the first jet the design would be 25 years old. Pass. I'm sure the Europeans would be thrilled to contract some of the jet production to Canadian companies. Dream on.

[DemolitionCat]

Well, keep dreaming about all those F-35 dogfights that are never going to happen.

F-35 never been in any regular service and is so late and over budget even the Americans are sick of it.

[MarchHare]

to me if you have a small airforce, then you need as many force multipliers as you can get. You get the best force multipliers in a fifth generation fighter.

As a pilot, former CF Reserves officer, and total aviation geek, I don't disagree that the F-35 is the best fighter available, but is it overkill for our needs? What are the CF's mission requirements for a manned jet fighter? Is there more than one aircraft that meets those requirements? If so, which one has the lowest total cost of ownership (not the lowest initial purchase price)? If the F-35 is the only plane capable of meeting our needs, then going ahead with this purchase makes perfect sense. How do we know that Canadian taxpayers are getting the best possible deal without an open bidding process, though?

Super Hornets, for example, aren't as sexy as F-35s, but they're more than $35 million cheaper per aircraft (according to wikipedia). Likewise, the per aircraft price of the Eurofighter Typhoon is approximately $25 million less (also from wikipedia) than the Lightning II. Do either the Super Hornet or Typhoon meet or exceed all the operational requirements for Canada's next manned fighter? True, they're both 4.5 generation aircraft, but does our air force actually need the latest and greatest 5th generation fighter? The last time we upgraded our fighter fleet, we opted for F-18s over the superior F-14s and F-15s because they were much better value while still being capable of meeting our mission requirements.

[photon]

Well the F-18 was also a multi-role platform while the F-14 and F-15 are primarily air superiority (though they do have attack capabilities).

One downside with going with a Super Hornet or Typhoon is that we'll reach this point (old airframe, inferior avionics, etc) sooner than with the F-35, and upgrading older airplanes is more expensive, so as you say while the Super Hornet would have been cheaper, how much sooner would we be at the point we are at right now again? Soon enough to justify the outlay for the F-35?

I don't think a bidding process makes much sense since there's very few options (we're buying existing stuff, not designing a whole new airplane), so picking the best one is fine.

But a more detailed explanation of why they made the choice would be nice.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by photon

Well the F-18 was also a multi-role platform while the F-14 and F-15 are primarily air superiority (though they do have attack capabilities).

While that's true, both were considered in Canada's New Fighter Aircraft program and were eliminated (along with the multi-role Tornado) because of excessive price (from wikipedia, consider the source).

One downside with going with a Super Hornet or Typhoon is that we'll reach this point (old airframe, inferior avionics, etc) sooner than with the F-35, and upgrading older airplanes is more expensive, so as you say while the Super Hornet would have been cheaper, how much sooner would we be at the point we are at right now again? Soon enough to justify the outlay for the F-35?

That's why I specifically said above that you evaluate the aircraft based on total cost of ownership over the anticipated lifespan, not the initial purchase price. If the F-35 is indeed the best deal, great, it's an absolutely amazing plane. Without a competitive bidding process, though, we have no way of knowing that there isn't a more cost-effective fighter that is still capable of meeting our operational requirements.

[Edit]
This also comes from wikipedia (consider the source) and is salient to the conversation:

A number of different fighter aircraft have been considered by the Canadian Forces as replacements for the CF-18 with the F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet all having been promoted as contenders by their respective manufacturers.[28] According to Le Devoir, project costs without considering maintenance, training and spare parts, are estimated at $4 to $8 billion.[29] Boeing has indicated the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a derivative of the F/A-18 Hornet, is a less expensive alternative at an estimated total cost of $4 billion.[30] One of the manufacturers in contention: Boeing, BAE Systems and Saab Aerospace, has promised to assemble the entire aircraft in Canada although the name was not publicly disclosed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18#Replacing_the_fleet

[photon]

What kind of competitive process though? Given the few options out there and even a few basic numbers it's possible that it was obvious the other ones weren't even worth considering. If it's close then you can open it for bids, but maybe it wasn't even close.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by photon

What kind of competitive process though? Given the few options out there and even a few basic numbers it's possible that it was obvious the other ones weren't even worth considering. If it's close then you can open it for bids, but maybe it wasn't even close.

From the wiki link above (and I have no idea how accurate that is), Boeing claims the Super Hornet would cost $4 billion (compared to $9-16 billion for the F-35s). I'm not sure if that figure is referring to initial purchase price or total cost of ownership including maintenance, but that's a pretty significant difference.

[DemolitionCat]

Again, it depends on what we want.

Did we do the Forces a service by holding out and making them fly Sea Kings for an extra 10 years so our new helicopters won't be obsolete so fast?

When was the last time we had to sneak up on some Taliban stealth fighters?

Is the F35 the sexiest plane out there? Sure. Is it the right one for us? If we believe the "Canada First" talk, I'm thinking no, or perhaps not in the numbers proposed if we can't even get a single real ice breaker out of port.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From the wiki link above (and I have no idea how accurate that is), Boeing claims the Super Hornet would cost $4 billion (compared to $9-16 billion for the F-35s). I'm not sure if that figure is referring to initial purchase price or total cost of ownership including maintenance, but that's a pretty significant difference.

Looking at the article it references, it says $6 billion for the F-35's, and mentions a per unit price of $100 million for the F-35, and doesn't mention that the $4 billion is for the whole package (which it would since it's an article critical of the purchase it seems) so I'm going to assume that the $4 vs. $6 billion is just the cost of the aircraft.

So $4 vs. $6 billion, which is huge, but considering we just spent $2.6 billion upgrading the CF-18 just to get us a few more years until the replacement, it's easy to see the other costs could easily justify the difference.. if the F-35 lasted a few more years vs the Super Hornet that's probably your $2 billion right there (assuming the rest of the costs are equal, which they probably aren't).

So I don't disagree that it's possible the Super Hornet is a better choice, but given the difference

The article also mentions that Lockheed Martin would have a fixed price, so the price wouldn't go up even if the final price of the F-35 does go up.

Plus the F-35 gives you one thing the Super Hornet can't ever; stealth.

[DemolitionCat]

I don't believe the fixed price talk for a second. Why can't we and the Brits have the C++ code, then?

Again, we need this stealth for what? Would our sovereignty and economic interests not be better served by saving on the F35 for a more capable Coast Guard?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

I don't believe the fixed price talk for a second. Why can't we and the Brits have the C++ code, then?

Again, we need this stealth for what? Would our sovereignty and economic interests not be better served by saving on the F35 for a more capable Coast Guard?

Who knows what the next NATO engagement might be. Stealth is a necessity in a modern battlefield. If the opposing force is employing any stealth technology or advanced radar we'll be in the crosshairs. I'm of the belief that spending more money for the safety of our soldiers is of paramount importance. I'd rather pay more of my taxes towards the military versus seeing more flag drapped coffins in Trenton.

[DemolitionCat]

If you want safe soldiers, then keep them here in Canada.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

If you want safe soldiers, then keep them here in Canada.

You want to be part of NATO, pull your weight.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by photon

Looking at the article it references, it says $6 billion for the F-35's, and mentions a per unit price of $100 million for the F-35, and doesn't mention that the $4 billion is for the whole package (which it would since it's an article critical of the purchase it seems) so I'm going to assume that the $4 vs. $6 billion is just the cost of the aircraft.

So $4 vs. $6 billion, which is huge, but considering we just spent $2.6 billion upgrading the CF-18 just to get us a few more years until the replacement, it's easy to see the other costs could easily justify the difference.. if the F-35 lasted a few more years vs the Super Hornet that's probably your $2 billion right there (assuming the rest of the costs are equal, which they probably aren't).

So I don't disagree that it's possible the Super Hornet is a better choice, but given the difference

The article also mentions that Lockheed Martin would have a fixed price, so the price wouldn't go up even if the final price of the F-35 does go up.

Plus the F-35 gives you one thing the Super Hornet can't ever; stealth.

To be fair, the stealth on the F-35 is constantly overexaggerated. The stealth on the F-35 is nowhere near as good as the F-22. We also don't know when exactly to expect deliveries on the planes either since Lockheed Martin is more than two years behind schedule on the program and counting.

LM also has a long history of cost overruns and missed production date targets. Those extra few years that we may get out of the a super hornet might just be how long we actually wait to get the F-35. I'm not a huge fan of the F-35 but given what's on the market it's currently the best fit for Canada's defence needs long term, if we get them any time soon that is.