F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Good2Golf]

When we purchased the LAV III, did we have to provide a costing to include the salaries of the 11 Infantry soldiers in it (plus a few more for attrition) and IMPs to feed them for 20 years? This is getting ridiculous.

It would be interesting if someone asked how much of the $25 billion for the future F-35 would apply to any new fighter we purchased?  After all, we will have roughly the same number of RCAF personnel operating, maintaining and supporting the next-generation fighter jet as we currently have for the CF-18 Hornet.  Those billions of dollars of "sunk costs" (i.e. fixed, no matter the cost of the aircraft itself) would be the same, whether we extended (unrealistic) the CF-18, got the F-35, the E/F-18, the Typhoon, the Rafael, the Gripen, the Su-35, the T-50, etc..... 

What is disingenuous (irresponsible) is when people portray those sunk costs as somehow being unique and directly-related to the F-35.  That is not accurate.


Regards
G2G

 

[HB_Pencil]

It would be interesting if someone asked how much of the $25 billion for the future F-35 would apply to any new fighter we purchased?  After all, we will have roughly the same number of RCAF personnel operating, maintaining and supporting the next-generation fighter jet as we currently have for the CF-18 Hornet.  Those billions of dollars of "sunk costs" (i.e. fixed, no matter the cost of the aircraft itself) would be the same, whether we extended (unrealistic) the CF-18, got the F-35, the E/F-18, the Typhoon, the Rafael, the Gripen, the Su-35, the T-50, etc..... 

The 10 billion "extra" costs that were discovered would apply to any other fighter, and may even be higher for the alternatives you list. The F-35's heavy use of performance based logistics means that its likely the personnel costs are lower, as more of the O&M is outsourced to the OEM. Yet this means the O&M costs are higher, as the costs are shifted to that column. But as the F-35's depot level maintenance will be shared within a worldwide pool and the fighter is specifically designed for this type of system, those contracts should be comparatively cheaper than for other aircraft.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

All this stuff happening in Ottawa right now is painful inside the political ballpark kind of stuff.

Not quite. The civil servants in other departments are seriously ticked off. Pushing this project ahead for the next couple of years against an uncooperative bureaucracy is going to be like pushing on a piece of rope.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I am not military, but I did go through Cornwallis a long time ago, back when we still used the FN.

I am just asking, can we discuss what might be the options if the F-35 program doesn't work out? Would that discussion belong in another thread, or is it a touchy subject?  Just asking.

That depends on a few things. The first is when we decide on holding a new competition and what happens with the F/A-18E/F line in the United States.  Most of the other competitors will still be around in 2015. Because I'm lazy, let me just copy this Ottawa Citizen article.

Like the EH-101, the value of the F-35 is clear when compared to the alternatives. Almost all other fighters with performance capabilities approaching that of the F-35 are significantly more expensive. The Cassadian Eurofighter and the Dassault Rafale are $100-million to $130-million range and are more costly to operate as twin-engined fighters. The government would need to increase its funding envelope cap of $9 billion to consider these aircraft.

This leaves only two possible alternatives. The Saab Gripen, a lightweight Swedish fighter that costs approximately $50 million per unit. Unfortunately it is insufficient for the RCAF’s needs, being deficient in range and interoperability with allied systems. The latter capability is in fact a force multiplier — a greater combined effect with fewer aircraft — and especially important in working with U.S. military.

The other alternative is the Boeing Super Hornet; an upgraded CF-18 currently in service with the U.S. Navy. Like the Gripen, the F/A-18E is significantly cheaper than the F-35 at $60 million per aircraft, but comes with serious drawbacks. The Super Hornet is nearing the end of its production life, with the U.S. Navy’s contract to end in 2015. Even if the fighter is available for purchase after 2016, there are serious questions about its viability. The U.S. Navy has stated the Super Hornet’s ability to operate in future conflicts is limited due to the proliferation of new Russian and Chinese air defence systems. Thus, as the F-35 enters service, the U.S. Navy will decrease the funding to upgrade the F/A-18E. Already the U.S. Navy has decided not to pursue major survivability upgrades such as an enhanced performance engine and stealthy weapon housing. The cost of maintaining this increasingly obsolete capability will grow substantially after 2025, less than a decade after the aircraft would enter service with the RCAF.

The only thing I would add is that the Gripen NG (a newer version of the Gripen C/D) has a much better range profile than its predecessor, but may cost as much as $85 million per unit.

 

[h3tacco]

Probably the best and only accurate review, publicly available,  of the F-35 prgoram available is the yearly US GAO report. I would recommend if anyone wishes to intelligently discuss the program they read it.  The link below is for the lastest dated March 30, 2012.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf

 

[Good2Golf]

The 10 billion "extra" costs that were discovered would apply to any other fighter, and may even be higher for the alternatives you list. The F-35's heavy use of performance based logistics means that its likely the personnel costs are lower, as more of the O&M is outsourced to the OEM. Yet this means the O&M costs are higher, as the costs are shifted to that column. But as the F-35's depot level maintenance will be shared within a worldwide pool and the fighter is specifically designed for this type of system, those contracts should be comparatively cheaper than for other aircraft.

Precisely. 

Now if some other folks with an investigative nature asked the same question and reported on their findings, to help others understand the difference between the two conceptually different costings to which DM Fonberg referred, well.....


Regards
G2G

 

[fruitflavor]

thank God no one here seems to be reading Toronto Star. Few of you may go insane reading it.
Their articles so far have all been against the purchase of the jet and keep saying there's cheaper or more reliable aircraft than F-35 without giving any alternatives.

Oh and best part are the comments. For example

I have been reading up on the F35
They really aren't that much better than the existing F18's we have. We can even get the F18 upgraded to incorporate stealth technology and more power and technology for a fraction of the F35 costs and still use our existing parts/supplies and maintenance programs. Don't make Canada their beta testers for this.

I know nothing about planes other than they fly but this is just :facepalm:

for those who are interested, the latest from the news agency mentioned above
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1171155--royal-canadian-air-force-still-wants-f-35-fighter-jet-committee-hears#article

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now if some other folks with an investigative nature asked the same question and reported on their findings, to help others understand the difference between the two conceptually different costings to which DM Fonberg referred, well.....

If one is to dream, one might as well dream big.....

Edited to add:  If previous cases,  like, say, the CDS flying in the Challenger, are any indication ....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/102571/post-1130651.html#msg1130651
.... it'll take ~6 months for a non-journalist to explain it far from the front page.

 

[AlexanderM]

That depends on a few things. The first is when we decide on holding a new competition and what happens with the F/A-18E/F line in the United States.  Most of the other competitors will still be around in 2015. Because I'm lazy, let me just copy this Ottawa Citizen article.


The only thing I would add is that the Gripen NG (a newer version of the Gripen C/D) has a much better range profile than its predecessor, but may cost as much as $85 million per unit.

I am pro-military, so as far as I concerned they can have whatever systems they want, within reason, including the F-35.  However, if the delays and cost increases continue to the point that the program just isn't going to work and all of the other partners decide to pull out, then what are the options.  If that were to happen, Australia, South Korea, Canada and perhaps Japan would all still be looking for an aircraft, and the UK would be looking for a carrier jet.

From what I have seen, all of the upgraded American aircraft, such as the F-15SE, the F-16, and the Super Hornet all are very expensive once they've been tricked out with all the latest equipment, the numbers I remember are all over 100 million.  Also, when it comes to the Super Hornet for 60 million, we have to ask, what comes with the aircraft, such as AESA radar, etc.  I doubt that the 60 million dollar version has the latest of everything.  I also don't personnaly think that the Super Hornet is the answer.

Now the Rafale just got it's upgraded AESA radar which increases the range by 40-50% and allows it to scan the skies, and ground very efficiently.  It's also supposed to get a new 90kN engine according to the terms of the sale to the IAF.  This would give it equal thrust to the typhoon, with superior radar, and by the time the F-35 drama plays itself out this should be a completely developed aircraft, capable of ~Mach 1.4 on dry thrust, with SPECTRA and good survivability.  So if the F-35 does not work out, and if we can talk some of these other countries into the Rafale, we might just be able to put together a large enough joint order to get the price down, at least to some extent.

If Canada does begin a new fighter competition, and if they say make AESA radar, good situational awareness, and suvivability a requirement, every aircraft offered is going to be 100 million or more, so it will just be a reality check for Canada.  Also, isn't it possible to purchase 65 aircraft at 100 million per under the current budget?  Although, 80 aircraft would be better.

Here is some information on the new radar.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafales-export-prospects-318499/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As mentioned the main problem with the Rafale is the weapon systems are totally different than what we are using. then of course there is the "regional benefits issue"

 

[AlexanderM]

So this doesn't get it done then?  I thought that this included some of the standard missles used.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/


Rafale can carry payloads of more than 9t on 14 hardpoints for the air force version, with 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes: Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles and Exocet / AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I am pro-military, so as far as I concerned they can have whatever systems they want, within reason, including the F-35.  However, if the delays and cost increases continue to the point that the program just isn't going to work and all of the other partners decide to pull out, then what are the options.  If that were to happen, Australia, South Korea, Canada and perhaps Japan would all still be looking for an aircraft, and the UK would be looking for a carrier jet.

The f-35's development is rapidly reaching a point where a "program failure" is extremely unlikely to happen. I think we're looking at $85~ million  based on how the contracts are running and the bulk of aircraft delivered after 2020. I think the next year and a half are probably the most critical, as the fighter will undergo demanding flight tests and the avionics development are in an difficult stage.

From what I have seen, all of the upgraded American aircraft, such as the F-15SE, the F-16, and the Super Hornet all are very expensive once they've been tricked out with all the latest equipment, the numbers I remember are all over 100 million.  Also, when it comes to the Super Hornet for 60 million, we have to ask, what comes with the aircraft, such as AESA radar, etc.  I doubt that the 60 million dollar version has the latest of everything.  I also don't personnaly think that the Super Hornet is the answer.

In the past few years the super hornet's flyaway has crept upwards because they aren't producing the optimum number of aircraft... I think its above $60 million for this last Multi year buy. Attaching sensor pods adds about $5 million, with other key equipment (pylons, tanks) probably add another one or two million to that.

Now the Rafale just got it's upgraded AESA radar which increases the range by 40-50% and allows it to scan the skies, and ground very efficiently.  It's also supposed to get a new 90kN engine according to the terms of the sale to the IAF.  This would give it equal thrust to the typhoon, with superior radar, and by the time the F-35 drama plays itself out this should be a completely developed aircraft, capable of ~Mach 1.4 on dry thrust, with SPECTRA and good survivability.  So if the F-35 does not work out, and if we can talk some of these other countries into the Rafale, we might just be able to put together a large enough joint order to get the price down, at least to some extent.

If Canada does begin a new fighter competition, and if they say make AESA radar, good situational awareness, and suvivability a requirement, every aircraft offered is going to be 100 million or more, so it will just be a reality check for Canada.  Also, isn't it possible to purchase 65 aircraft at 100 million per under the current budget?  Although, 80 aircraft would be better.

Here is some information on the new radar.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafales-export-prospects-318499/

I personally like the Rafale a great deal and I'm fairly familiar with it. However its generally a poor choice for Canada for several reasons, including interoperability and potential industrial benefits. It is not able to deploy the most versatile American weapon, the JDAM or its derivatives (JSOW ect.) The aircraft performed remarkably well during Unified Protector, distinguishing itself above every single other aircraft that operated during the conflict. Its a maturing combat system, with a full array of capabilities. Its also quite expensive, in part due to very low production rates and small numbers produced. Depending on the industrial effects of the IAF purchase, its still a 100 million dollar flyaway. Furthermore its Thales radar has good scanning range and definition, but pales in comparison to the AN/APG-81 in its abilities.

Finally it also lacks the sensor integration piece that is so critical for the F-35 and American aircraft in general. So if I was forced to pick a replacement, I would grugingly suggest the F-15SG/K/whatever. The F/A-18 is being removed from service. Still its almost certainly more costly to field and maintain for the RCAF, but it would provide a reasonable level of capability that allows for interoperability with US forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

I saw this article on the Defense-Aerospace site touting the fact that the Japanese have agreed to spend 10 BUSD for a paltrey 42 aircraft. 

This seems to be at risk of being compared to our purchase price 9 BUSD for 65.

Would some of those that know something about these things care to comment on the shopping list of supplied goods?  To my eye many of them appear to be part and parcel of the 16 BUSD package that includes in-service support.

The estimated cost is $10 billion.

All aircraft will be configured with the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines, and 5 spare Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines.

Other Aircraft Equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems, Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identifications (C4I/CNI), Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS), Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), Flight Mission Trainer, Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities, F-35 unique infrared flares, reprogramming center, and F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, flight test instrumentation, aircraft ferry and tanker support, spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $10 billion.

 

[dapaterson]

I saw this article on the Defense-Aerospace site touting the fact that the Japanese have agreed to spend 10 BUSD for a paltrey 42 aircraft. 

This seems to be at risk of being compared to our purchase price 9 BUSD for 65.

Would some of those that know something about these things care to comment on the shopping list of supplied goods?  To my eye many of them appear to be part and parcel of the 16 BUSD package that includes in-service support.

Accounting is at times more art than science, and different nations have different standards for reporting.

To do a true apples to apples comparison between two purchasing nations would require a team of accountants and military experts to ensure that both are truly speaking about the same things.

As well, given the nature of the JSF partnership, per unit pricing differs for partners and non-partners.  Simplified, partners contributing to the MOU do not pay for R&D costs on the airframes they purchase; non-partners do pay those costs.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I saw this article on the Defense-Aerospace site touting the fact that the Japanese have agreed to spend 10 BUSD for a paltrey 42 aircraft. 

This seems to be at risk of being compared to our purchase price 9 BUSD for 65.

Would some of those that know something about these things care to comment on the shopping list of supplied goods?  To my eye many of them appear to be part and parcel of the 16 BUSD package that includes in-service support.

Sure.

In general FMS are difficult to decipher. First its tough to assess what's included in the actual contract. However this basically covers everything the Japanese would ask for from the US. Its probably comparable to our 15 billion dollar figure, all things considered. The PBL contract is in there, ALIS and ALGS, as is training, unit purchase costs ect. Question is how long those contracts are for.

Second, there are variations in costs between different systems under FMS that are difficult to account for. This was an discussion on C-17 costs that illustrate these issues. As Dapaterson notes, there is a major difference between our position as a partner and the Japanese as a FMS. They can include R&D costs that we're exempted from. There are often  "administration costs" among other things included. We do know that at least a portion of this purchase will be before the Full rate production decision is made, so these fighters flyaway cost are probably in the $105 to $95 million dollar range.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I saw this article on the Defense-Aerospace site touting the fact that the Japanese have agreed to spend 10 BUSD for a paltrey 42 aircraft. 

This seems to be at risk of being compared to our purchase price 9 BUSD for 65.

Would some of those that know something about these things care to comment on the shopping list of supplied goods?  To my eye many of them appear to be part and parcel of the 16 BUSD package that includes in-service support.

I would suspect that how well your currency does vs the U.S. dollar may also be a factor.

 

[AlexanderM]

I personally like the Rafale a great deal and I'm fairly familiar with it. However its generally a poor choice for Canada for several reasons, including interoperability and potential industrial benefits. It is not able to deploy the most versatile American weapon, the JDAM or its derivatives (JSOW ect.) The aircraft performed remarkably well during Unified Protector, distinguishing itself above every single other aircraft that operated during the conflict. Its a maturing combat system, with a full array of capabilities. Its also quite expensive, in part due to very low production rates and small numbers produced. Depending on the industrial effects of the IAF purchase, its still a 100 million dollar flyaway. Furthermore its Thales radar has good scanning range and definition, but pales in comparison to the AN/APG-81 in its abilities.

I recently read about the F16 using a LITENING targeting pod with the JDAM, and I know that the Rafale can also use the LITENING targeting pod, so I'm wondering if it isn't that big of a step to make it compatible.  If we had to go to plan B, we wouldn't be getting the F-35 radar, so it would then be a comparison between the one available on the F-15 vs the Rafale, I like the idea of the F-15 better than the F-18 just because of speed and range.  Also, there would be the possiblilty of parts for the Rafale being manufactured in Canada, as the IAF is building the whole plane in India.

I understand that it might not in the end be practical, but it might first be worth seeing what shotfalls can be overcome.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I recently read about the F16 using a LITENING targeting pod with the JDAM, and I know that the Rafale can also use the LITENING targeting pod, so I'm wondering if it isn't that big of a step to make it compatible.  If we had to go to plan B, we wouldn't be getting the F-35 radar, so it would then be a comparison between the one available on the F-15 vs the Rafale, I like the idea of the F-15 better than the F-18 just because of speed and range.

I think in general there would be significant work to get the Rafale workable for the RCAF, and we would be facing these costs for the lifetime of the fighter. None of the Rafale's clients are major US allies, which means we would be on the hook to upgrade the fighter over time to maintain overall interoperability (because nobody else would.)

Furthermore ignoring the question of raw performance of the Thales and Raytheon radars, the F-15's avionics are much better suited to be interoperable with US systems. Sensor fusion and battlefield networking is the most advantageous part of the F-35 program (its far more important than stealth IMO) , and the F/A-18E and F-15E are second best among the available options. The French just don't have the same level of development in this area, as their application of "net centric" approaches (to use that old term) has lagged since the 1990s.

The problem with the F-15 over the Super Hornet is that its a very significant jump in costs. You're looking at two larger engines, two pilots, much more maintenance. Flight hour costs will be very high, so stuff like domestic sovereignty patrols will be significantly more expensive.

Also, there would be the possiblilty of parts for the Rafale being manufactured in Canada, as the IAF is building the whole plane in India.

Domestic offsets of this sort are really inefficient and should be avoided. I don't have specific numbers but aerospace trade with Europe is very low, in part due to protectionist measures within their industry. Given the lack of links, domestic offsets would likely be one time deals that don't produce sustainable benefits beyond the agreed amount. Producing parts for the Rafale isn't very appealing given the fighter's production line is not likely to last long after 2020.


Boeing contracts are second best to the F-35 industrial partnership scheme. Canadian firms already are key partners with the giant and they can just tack on business to their current operations with firms. The inevitable question is whether these contracts would have happened regardless. Its a bit of an shell game but it works out better for Canadian industries in the long run.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Regional impacts/Canadian contracts will be a major issue with such a large contract, regardless of what people say. Politically to spend the money and not get Canadians making money from it, makes it a hard political sell.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Regional impacts/Canadian contracts will be a major issue with such a large contract, regardless of what people say. Politically to spend the money and not get Canadians making money from it, makes it a hard political sell non-starter.

FTFY