Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see your point. But in the interest of replacing aircraft and maintaining defense group support thats what the JSF is designed for. It integrates three aircraft into one package. With that you knock out Ground support man hours flight hours and maintenance costs of two of the aircraft the JSF is replacing. To me this is a no brainer because 1 aircraft will be able to do the job of 3. Have a few F-35's in packs and you have a strike group capable of taking on a small army in air or on ground.

Used to be fighters escorted the bombers. Now its AWACS escorting Prowlers escorting fighters that protect the bombers. Seems better suited for the AWACS to just escort the JSF and do away with the others. Again just me thinking out loud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With how much secrets China has stolen of late, how long will F-22 and F-35 be relevant ?

Not for long, I fear ...

-Gregg

Throughout the Cold War Russia stole a lot of secrets, they didn't have the means to implement them. What they did do was do what they could with the information and focus on producing what they could in mass numbers. Even the most sophisticated fighter is no match if out numbered by more than its weaponry can take on. Combat isn't like Hollywood where the good guy never runs out of bullets. Once you fired your last shot, you better hope you can out run those left standing.

When is the last time you ever saw China participating in joint training exercises with other nations? Tactics training is better when you have the opportunity to mix it up with others. Though they might train for various scenarios internally, they really are only as good as their teachers. Once you can anticipate what your opponent is going to do because you have danced with them for so long, you'll be less ready if a new dancer shows up at the party.

Russia is now focusing on building relationships with its former foes, with aircraft and aircrew exchange programs. Hence the reason the Bear bombers that are TDY to Barksdale to participate in joint training with the B-52 crews.

I think China knows that when it loses its economic hold on the rest of the world, it will be forced to either soften and join the rest or become even more isolated and aggressive. Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Canada can afford the original budget of $46B, they can buy 65 Super bugs and 32 F-35. Wouldn't it give them the best defense for the money?

Depends. Let's say you need to get to a thirty foot roof. You can afford 1 40 foot ladder, or ten 8 foot ladders.

What is the better value for your roof access money?

Sure, you can try to tape or tie ladders together. But much like taking a 4th gen knife to a 5th gen gunfight it likely won't get you to the roof and might get you a Darwin award.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. Let's say you need to get to a thirty foot roof. You can afford 1 40 foot ladder, or ten 8 foot ladders.

What is the better value for your roof access money?

Sure, you can try to tape or tie ladders together. But much like taking a 4th gen knife to a 5th gen gunfight it likely won't get you to the roof and might get you a Darwin award.

Or termites. You and you wife discover your house has termites. You want to kill 100 percent, and she wants to kill zero percent. So you "compromise" and decide to kill half the termites.

3qnqs0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, China participates in many training exercises with other countries ...

Just Google it ...

-Gregg

Most / all of which are PR exercises (lets sail our ships in formation with nation X so we can get some nice photos) not full blown tactical training events like Red Flag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Canadian CBC report on Boeing's effort to sell the Super Hornet to Canada.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin both say their plane is superior in various ways. Lockheed Martin's headline feature is stealth. Boeing's is price. The Super Hornet currently sells for about $55 million US apiece; the Pentagon expects the F-35 to cost twice as much — about $110 million. But only 20 per cent of the cost of owning a fighter fleet is the actual sticker price of the planes. Eighty per cent is the operating cost — what it takes to keep them flying.

"The current actual costs to operate a Super Hornet are less than half the cost that the F-35 is projected to be once it's in operation, just to operate," says Mike Gibbons, vice-president in charge of the Super Hornet program. Really? That sounded too good to be true — so CBC News dug into Boeing's figures to see how credible they are.

According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500.

CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers and it did not.

The report is being viewed by people who have experience in this area; as an expert marketing job by Boeing. The Navy's operating cost is not $15,000, or at least that's not an apples to apples comparison with the F-35's cost. First, the base year for that calculation was also in 2000, so that ups it to over $20,000 in FY2012 prices. So there goes a bit. The F-16C, which is operated at near bargain basement prices from fixed land bases with a larger fleet and with a single pilot and single engine (with significantly lower fuel consumption) is $19,000 per hour. The F-15E (which is probably a bit better comparison with the F/A-18E as a heavier twin and similar avionics) is $28,000. That probably represents the upper end of the cost envelope. Looking at the Navy's figures in their SAR, it looks like they might be dividing the total known costs over a larger fleet with each aircraft given an average number of hours.

Also , there is a good likelihood that the F-35's costs are overstated, because they are based on modeling from legacy fighter programs (F-16C for the AF version). The F-35 was designed with a significantly different maintenance system. Autonomic logistics (basically electronic parts management + delivery) combined with performance based logistics (contracted logistics approaches... if implemented) should significantly reduce the unit operational costs. Current modeling are based on extrapolations legacy programs that do not use PBL or had the benefit of ALIS systems, so basically they count on larger maintenance costs and lower availability than one would expect.

Also the Super Hornet does not sell for $55 million a piece; Their Real Flyaway is $83 million, which is set to increase dramatically in the next few years as the US Navy ends their purchases. Then you add FMS, research fees and mods, and it gets to $90 million or more.

What kinda is ridiculous is how CBC dredges up every crank when it comes to the F-35, yet will completely and uncritically take the word of Boeing on their work. Its shoddy, agenda-based reporting at its finest.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, China participates in many training exercises with other countries ...

Just Google it ...

-Gregg

Here is the 2001 St. Louis Rams playbook "The greatest show on Turf":

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19981254/2001-St-Louis-Rams-Playbook

in the open and free to use by anyone who wants it. It doesn't mean next year we will see 32 NFL teams all on scoring sprees. Knowing what to do and actually executing it are two different things. Not to mention the right people in the right places. putting on a helmet with a curly horn doesn't make you Kurt Warner either.

What kinda is ridiculous is how CBC dredges up every crank when it comes to the F-35, yet will completely and uncritically take the word of Boeing on their work. Its shoddy, agenda-based reporting at its finest.

Truer words have never been spoken. This is Boeing making their pitch through CBC. Nothing more. Natutally Boeing just like LM is going to play up their strengths and add a little gusto and spice as well. I do like though that we still have the tired old "our airplanes only patrol the arctic north/two engine" garbage.

F-16_0.jpg

single engine aircraft in tropical Norway.

5618207599_4414f4bb2d.jpg

Freezing in Italy, 2011

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway even though it's far north likely does not operate it F-16's as often or as far away from prospective bases. They probably patrol their norther islands and waters with long range patrol planes. The difficulty for Canada is that our arctic airspace is many, many more sq. miles larger with very few useable runways to land a jet fighter. It could be hours or longer to evac a downed pilot in our North. I doubt Norwegian pilots will suffer the same.

The issue is that we have so little REAL facts as to costs, useability in any combat role and real survivability the F-35 may have and if such will be markedly better than the F-18E/F? It's all a guessing game. Boeing is correct on this its Super Hornets have served in real combat, they have actually exercised in air exercises etc. F-35 has not. I'm sure L/M and the DoD will begin implement real air exercise with the F-35 soon. If they are done fair we may better see any advantages it may have in any combat role.

The problem is this, Canada was looking at beginning to replace our CF-18's by 2017. Will that goal be met? Not sure but it does not look so good. Costs of F-35 in use operations are still PIE IN THE SKY. What if our geography and climate has an adverse affects on the F-35? What if she becomes a hanger queen and suffers low in service availability? 65 F-35 were say 70-80% of the fleet is down is not going to serve us well. F-18E/F does enjoy high rates of in service operability. It is also not some out dated relic from the 1970's. It is a very advance combat plane. It's currently being used to protect the USN's most valuable assets their CVN's and is able to project power in CAP and AGM.

Canada can't wait forever either. Price, politic, business spinoffs and a real honest evaluation must be considered and as such we are going to better compare F-35 to other choices.

IMO it will be F-35 vs SuperHornet or Typhoon. Rafale is a nice and over achieving jet but industrial spinoffs may not be their. Gripen is a great jet too but it's single engine and may not offer smilar spinoffs. Boeing guarantees it will give Canada the same sort or better industrial spinoffs as L/M and I suspect EADS will probably bring something to the spinoff table.

TIME WILL TELL but Canada can't wait forever.

If Canada goes F-18E/F some sources note a mix of maybe 65 F-18E/F with 2/3rds E models and1/3 rd F models, maybe adding 15-20 EA-18G Growlers as there is and will be a need for these in future and by NATO for one.

We will watch this fighter purchase ride though

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not smart to underestimate a potential adversary, especially one with the kind of numbers of soldiers that it can be thrown into a conflict ...

-Gregg ...

PS: TT, I know the Rams playbook, I've been a fan longer than you have breathed ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Norway even though it's far north likely does not operate it F-16's as often or as far away from prospective bases. They probably patrol their norther islands and waters with long range patrol planes. The difficulty for Canada is that our arctic airspace is many, many more sq. miles larger with very few useable runways to land a jet fighter. It could be hours or longer to evac a downed pilot in our North. I doubt Norwegian pilots will suffer the same.

Alaskan based F-16s also patrol vast expanses of harsh real estate, and if I am not mistaken Canada as well as per NORAD agreements. as far as I can tell the Northern patrol bugaboo has 3 major factors:

1. the ability to land and operate on icy runways

2. the range needed to cover all the ground

3. reliability of the aircraft/two engine argument

The issue is that we have so little REAL facts as to costs, useability in any combat role and real survivability the F-35 may have and if such will be markedly better than the F-18E/F? It's all a guessing game. Boeing is correct on this its Super Hornets have served in real combat, they have actually exercised in air exercises etc. F-35 has not. I'm sure L/M and the DoD will begin implement real air exercise with the F-35 soon. If they are done fair we may better see any advantages it may have in any combat role. ... Costs of F-35 in use operations are still PIE IN THE SKY.

The KPMG report spells out exactly what it will cost over the span of decades, which is why the Canadian Government had it done. The "real survivability" features of the F-35 are classified but from what we know publically its a superior warplane, and was one of the reasons Canada signed onto the JSF in the first place (before Canada had their change of heart)Its going to be more capable than what it is replacing, or a improved variation of what it is replacing in the SH.

The problem is this, Canada was looking at beginning to replace our CF-18's by 2017. Will that goal be met? Not sure but it does not look so good. What if our geography and climate has an adverse affects on the F-35?

I can't imagine what is unique to the F-35 that would effect it differently than other warplanes. (before we say skin, F-18E/F also has RAM)

What if she becomes a hanger queen and suffers low in service availability? 65 F-35 were say 70-80% of the fleet is down is not going to serve us well.

the F-35 has improved logistical and fleet tracking, and several anecdotes from maintainers on the F-35 already say its easier/faster to fix in many respects to the F-18s they are used to.

It is also not some out dated relic from the 1970's. It is a very advance combat plane. It's currently being used to protect the USN's most valuable assets their CVN's and is able to project power in CAP and AGM.

so far every operator of the F-18E/F (USN/RAAF) is also getting F-35s and in the future relegating the super bug more and more. F-18E/F is also not due for any upgrades. General Hostage of the USAF says it will be obsolete in 10 years. More on the Canadian F-18E/F here:

http://cdainstitute.blogspot.com/2013/01/replacing-cf18-part-i-fa-18e-super.html

Note that the author believes in the end Canada would only be able to buy 55 SH for a comparable F-35 price, and of course that changes if we are talking about additional crew(F-18F) and additional variant cost (EF-18G)that adds to costs. the KPMG report included the cost of crewing the aircraft, you are adding additional people/jamming variants which will increase operational cost.

As for waiting forever Canada does still technically have time, around 2020 is when things get critical. No need to panic.

I understand the concern but Canada has looked into this, they even had an audit but one of the Big Four (KPMG)to look into Canadian costs specifically. Of all the Variables for Canada cost is pretty well known.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the US does fly F-16s over Alaska, and its cold, its nothing compared to the real north. Trees do not grow and there is NOTHING for hours in any direction, even in flight. Just snow and ice.

We remember the awful crash of Herc 130322, took days to rescue the survivors.

"Canadian Forces Station Alert"

"CC130 130322 Crash"

Alert, Nunavut

Canadanwtrans.gif

alert2c.jpgPhoto provided by Irv Finklemanhistoryapproved.gif

canline.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Canadian CBC report on Boeing's effort to sell the Super Hornet to Canada.

You can read the report for the rest of the Boeing argument. The CBC reporter seems to be factual and objective enough in reporting the Boeng argument without sounding biased.

Of course, Boeing is biased, but seems to present a reasonable argument.

If Canada can afford the original budget of $46B, they can buy 65 Super bugs and 32 F-35. Wouldn't it give them the best defense for the money?

The CBC report made no bone that they were just reporting the Boeing sale pitch to the Canadian public. It is up to the Canadian National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to make the final decision. Unlike many others on this board, I tend to believe that there would be enough professional and military experts to sort out the facts and numbers for the Secretariat.

Canada Taps Market for Fighter Options.

The Indian MMRCA selection is a good example of how decision were made. Despite the fact that Rafale lacks some of the electronics on the Super Hornet (AESA radar) and Eurofighter (Missile defense), it won. Rafale is the most expensive, but France did not hold back features on the aircraft and promised the most technology transfer.

The CBC report ended this way.

Don't say Boeing doesn't know how to do a sales job. And Lockheed Martin's no slouch, either. In fact, Lockheed has a Canadian chief test pilot for the F-35 program, too — Billie Flynn, who's doubly Canadian, if it comes to that, because he's married to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. Top that, Boeing!

Actually, Traven has some high-orbit Canadian connections, too. He's an old air force buddy of another well-known pilot: Gen. Tom Lawson, no less — who's now Canada's chief of defence staff.

Lawson has long been a fan of the F-35, but has recently begun to downplay the importance of stealth. He told CBC News that government decision-makers might do well to listen to his former comrade.

"Every aircraft brings a level of stealth," said Lawson — not just the F-35. The new secretariat that is looking at alternatives, he said, will have to see just how much stealth each plane offers.

Does the Super Hornet have what it takes? "I don't know," Lawson replied.

"We're going to leave that to the team to look at. We don't have Super Hornets. We have not, until recently, even considered purchasing them. So I think that Ricardo Traven, my good friend that you mentioned, might have something to say about that, that would interest the teams, the whole-of-government teams, that are together to consider it."

So, the contest is on — and, if it was once wired to make sure the F-35 won, it isn't now. The government insists it really is "hitting the reset button" and is serious about looking for alternatives.

There will be individual continue to argue that Canada can buy more JSF than Super Hornet for the same price. But it will be hard to convince the Canadian National Fighter Procurement Secretariat on this cost argument without facts.

Edited by Kei Lau
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the contest is on — and, if it was once wired to make sure the F-35 won, it isn't now. The government insists it really is "hitting the reset button" and is serious about looking for alternatives.[/indent]

There will be individual continue to argue that Canada can buy more JSF than Super Hornet for the same price. But it will be hard to convince the Canadian National Fighter Procurement Secretariat on this cost argument without facts.

Yes, its going to be tough to argue that the Super Hornet won't cost more, when the US Government's own figures show precisely that:

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/F%20A-18E%20F%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf

Page 19: $63 million in FY2000 dollars or $84 million today. Then there is FMS and research fees and canadian modifications. $90 million is about the base price right now. However its certain to be significantly higher come 2015 if and when we decide to chose the fighter because the US Navy production ends this year. Where was the Critic of the Super Hornet to say that like they always have with the F-35?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, the USN article is three years old.......

The article was about a multi-year porcurement contract where the price was locked on for both sides for 3 years. So the price is still accurate today.

Both sides (USN and Boeing) reached agreement on the $5.3 billion amount, or $42.7 million per aircraft. This sum is about 10% lower than the inflation-adjusted price for the Super Hornet in the previous multi-year buy, and more than 13% lower than the initial MYP contract signed 10 years ago.

It must be pointed out the the $42.7M per aircraft price is for airframe and all onboard equipments fly away cost only. The USN signed separately contract with GE for the F414 engines and they usually get a few spares in addition to the installed number (2 per airplane). The engine cost was reported to be $4M each. It will make to Super Hornet cost to be over $50M per airplane for the USN, which is less than the $66M for Canada quoted in the CBC report.

Edited by Kei Lau
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Gregg, Australia has not said they're buying more SH. What DMO has done is send a Letter of Request asking for cost and availability information. The first sentnece of your link says that: "a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for up to 12 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft and 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft" There's also this from DMO:

“The Australian Government has not made a decision to purchase more Super Hornets. The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Australian Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.â€

In other words, DMO asked "How much and what lead time?". No more, no less.

Between the boosters and the haters beating their drums, there's too much white noise around the F-35 programme*. Contrary to Mark's view, not every Aussie with an interest in modern airpower hates the aircraft. Like me, most remember the initial F-111 debacle and how well that eventually turned out. So we'll wait and see how it goes (remembering the lessons of the F-111 and also those from the buys of HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora and the M1A1), then decide whether it's a WOFTAM or not.

*Are we seeing sales staff from L-M arguing with their opposite numbers from Boeing in this thread? It certainly seems like it sometimes- there's more spin in this thread than an election speech.

Dal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the last contract the Navy signed with Boeing ...

Less than what you stated ...

>>> Article <<<

>>> Australia wants more <<<

-Gregg

You're quoting a single contract price with boeing, who doesn't produce the engines (GE), radar (Raytheon), other avionics such as countermeasures, ATFLIR, and almost everything else. Thus those items (and other government furnished equipment in budget speak) must be purchased to get a fully operational aircraft. This is basically what Boeing is trying to do when they claim their fighter costs 55 million: its not a fully operational aircraft.

That's why the SAR is basically the final resource when it comes to these things; its DoD's report to congress that includes every single cost included in the fighter to get it to operational service.You can't hide behind citing one line item and stating that's all what it will cost. It also allows for a apples to apples comparison between two programs.

During the first round of the NGFC, they found the cost of the F/A-18E was higher than the F-35... that's why it was chosen to be lower. If anything the fundamentals of the F/A-18E program have gotten worse as the US production ends and cost validation on the F-35's estimates have started to come in (There have been almost no cost increases since 2010.)

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read what you wrote, Gregg. To clarify: Australia does not necessarily want more SH (wouldn't be surprised if the RAAF did, though), they are looking at options.

Or, if I was being truly cynical ( :wasntme: ) I'd say they're doing this so that they can point to their proposed Defence spending for some "Defence Credibility" during the current election campaign.

I used to do the same as part of my job in DMO, until I left last November- ask for quotes from suppliers (domestic or foreign) so that my project could look at alternative courses of action. Less than 20% of those quotes ever went anywhere, as they were a planning tool. We even had a legal waiver on the RFQ's, notifying the suppliers that the RFQ did not of itself signal an intention to purchase, nor did it bind the Commonwealth in any agreement to purchase (that was bought in after a certain vendor tried to sue the C'wealth for not purchasing some equipment, after receiving an RFQ).

What surprises me is that Smith has put himself forward as doing this, rather than letting the project office do it, as per usual...... Oh, wait- Election on 14 September!

Cheers.

Dal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quoting a single contract price with boeing, who doesn't produce the engines (GE), radar (Raytheon), other avionics such as countermeasures, ATFLIR, and almost everything else. Thus those items (and other government furnished equipment in budget speak) must be purchased to get a fully operational aircraft. This is basically what Boeing is trying to do when they claim their fighter costs 55 million: its not a fully operational aircraft.

That's why the SAR is basically the final resource when it comes to these things; its DoD's report to congress that includes every single cost included in the fighter to get it to operational service.You can't hide behind citing one line item and stating that's all what it will cost. It also allows for a apples to apples comparison between two programs.

During the first round of the NGFC, they found the cost of the F/A-18E was higher than the F-35... that's why it was chosen to be lower. If anything the fundamentals of the F/A-18E program have gotten worse as the US production ends and cost validation on the F-35's estimates have started to come in (There have been almost no cost increases since 2010.)

Usually, the correct comparison is the URF (Unit Recurring Flyaway) plus the installed engine cost. The latest number for JSF is the 2011 SAR. The latest number for the Super Hornet is the 2010 multi-year procurement contract. I have never heard that the radar and avionics are additional to the SH URF.

The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems, Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 19 Foreign Military Sales aircraft and 697 International Partner aircraft.

F-35A (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) URF - $67.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $78.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $76.1 M (BY 2012)

These compare to the $42.7M that Boeing quote. But there are bigger difference than just the numbers. SH number is the actual that US government pays today. The JSF number are projection based on total purchase over the program life and certain foriegn sales total. Beside, all the non-recurring cost of the SH are paid for, but it is still a big budget item for the JSF.

Is the JSF a more capable aircraft? No one can argue it is not. It was promised to be cost competitive to the Super Hornet. It does not seem possible now, but there are still people who would make up number to argue that it is. The only relevant questions are whether the SH is good enough for their mission for the next 30 years or whether the JSF is affordable to their budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, if I was being truly cynical ( :wasntme:/> ) I'd say they're doing this so that they can point to their proposed Defence spending for some "Defence Credibility" during the current election campaign.

Others have suggested this as well.

SH number is the actual that US government pays today.

Yes what the UNITED STATES paid based on a contract signed YEARS ago. It will be the price Neu says in a deal for Canada. The bottom line (and I know this is hard for people to wrap their heads around because it seems counter intuitive,) is that the Super Hornet is not the cheapest option anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...