Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cost of F35 to increase if Canada leaves program

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cost of F35 to increase if Canada leaves program

    From Jane's Defence Weekly.

    http://www.janes.com/article/55466/p...f-35-programme

    Canada's threatened departure from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II combat aircraft programme could raise the price of the stealthy jets for the remaining customers, according to US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon's F-35 programme manager.
    Hitler played Golf. His bunker shot was a hole in one.

  • #2
    Can't blame Canada. Those things are hideously expensive and only useful to a nation planning on attacking somebody.

    Canada doesn't need them and neither do we.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Can't blame Canada. Those things are hideously expensive and only useful to a nation planning on attacking somebody.

      Canada doesn't need them and neither do we.
      Current builds where actually cheaper than some European fighters...
      Not that it changes much in some eyes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
        Current builds where actually cheaper than some European fighters...
        Not that it changes much in some eyes.
        Which European fighters specifically?


        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          The aircraft definitely serves a purpose, but it is not a do all replacement for the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, etc.

          It should only exist in our inventory to serve the purpose of a stealthy strike aircraft. For now, stealth still has an edge, but the enemy is working on that.....

          Existing designs, with upgraded avionics and weapons suites are the way to go.
          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe Canada can revive the Arrow...

            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
              The aircraft definitely serves a purpose, but it is not a do all replacement for the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, etc.

              It should only exist in our inventory to serve the purpose of a stealthy strike aircraft. For now, stealth still has an edge, but the enemy is working on that.....

              Existing designs, with upgraded avionics and weapons suites are the way to go.
              Well, the military is part of the government, and no government agency willingly cuts back on spending if it can be avoided. A good way to force them to look at more practical solutions is to reign in the spending.

              Considering how much we spend on defense as a percentage of our GDP each year (especially when compared to the rest of the world), we could easily trim a few billion off their budget without a loss of capability.

              Comment


              • #8
                Derek, if you tell the Generals/Admirals to cut several Billion from the budget, they will not cut what can be done without. They will immediately target programs with lots of political support. They figure their political supporters will not cut the offered programs. They do this with National Guard budgets every year. The Congress usually returns the proposed cuts into the budget.

                Do not compare European Defense spending to US spending. They have cut back so far because they figure the US will protect them, no matter how little they spend! Because of these attitudes, we have to keep a large Transport Capability to reinforce Europe in case of crisis.

                If you see the US can cut back on Defense spending, where would YOU cut?

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                  The aircraft definitely serves a purpose, but it is not a do all replacement for the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, etc.

                  It should only exist in our inventory to serve the purpose of a stealthy strike aircraft. For now, stealth still has an edge, but the enemy is working on that.....

                  Existing designs, with upgraded avionics and weapons suites are the way to go.
                  It's also replacing the AV-8B.

                  I think the F-35 might be the textbook example for an aircraft that can do everything, but does nothing well.

                  It's like trying to field a major league baseball team with a roster of nothing but utility infielders... and blowing the salary cap.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    Derek, if you tell the Generals/Admirals to cut several Billion from the budget, they will not cut what can be done without. They will immediately target programs with lots of political support. They figure their political supporters will not cut the offered programs. They do this with National Guard budgets every year. The Congress usually returns the proposed cuts into the budget.

                    Do not compare European Defense spending to US spending. They have cut back so far because they figure the US will protect them, no matter how little they spend! Because of these attitudes, we have to keep a large Transport Capability to reinforce Europe in case of crisis.

                    If you see the US can cut back on Defense spending, where would YOU cut?

                    Pruitt
                    I wasn't too concerned with EU budgets as we're unlikely to come into conflict with the EU anytime soon. They should actually be higher since they have to look to their own defense needs. As Obama has shown, we're not always going to ride to the "rescue" (or recklessly invade, depending on your POV).

                    China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a few minor players in South America and the Middle East are the nations for whom a military conflict isn't pure fantasy. Unlikely, but possible.

                    We spend four times more than China alone. Of the other top five military spenders, one is France and the other Saudi Arabia. Neither nation is setting itself up for a fight with the US.


                    We're overspending by a wide margin compared to any possible adversary (or group of adversaries).

                    There are plenty of programs and areas for cuts to be made. The military has a terrible track record when it comes to spending on its numerous projects (The Bradley? The Comanche? The F35?).

                    Forbes - How To Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn't Work Out

                    One of the most unsettling facets of federal finance is the way the government devalues past investments. The political system is so focused on the next budget — and the next election — that it ignores sunk costs. Thus, every program termination is considered “savings,” without regard to the money that was spent to get the project in question to its current state.

                    ...

                    The Army has been the biggest offender in recent times, probably because it was awash in money appropriated for fighting ground wars in Asia. It walked away from a mobile cannon called Crusader in 2002 after spending $2 billion on developing it because Army leaders decided it was too heavy to fit with their plans for a more mobile force. Eight years later it canceled a potential successor system after spending $1.2 billion. In 2004 it killed the Comanche next-generation “armed reconnaissance” helicopter, squandering $7 billion in sunk costs, then a few years later it canceled the proposed replacement — incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in additional losses. It also has moved to terminate both of its next-generation air defense systems because threats “didn’t evolve as expected,” and now seems to be getting cold feet about its second try at buying a plane that can identify hostile radio emitters on the battlefield.
                    What the military wants and what it needs are different issues. The amount of sheer waste within the military (both past and present) is pretty staggering. If you want me to pick out the specific things I'd think are most in need of a cut, then I'd have to see the full budget and an itemized list to really make a proper judgment call. Otherwise I'd just be speaking from the place of an educator outsider.

                    Right now, one could argue that our military spending is actually doing more harm to the nation than a military with a smaller budget. We're already deep in debt, and the military is one of many areas in need of a trim.

                    But then, like trying to rein in social programs, you can expect a lot of vitriol when such suggestions are made. For some, wanting to trim the budget is like saying you don't care about the lives of our soldiers in the same way reducing social programs makes one a racist.

                    Lots of politics involved in that budget item.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      ...We spend four times more than China alone. Of the other top five military spenders, one is France and the other Saudi Arabia. Neither nation is setting itself up for a fight with the US.


                      We're overspending by a wide margin compared to any possible adversary (or group of adversaries).

                      The only problem is that even this diagram does not reflect what is being spent. As it only compares spending on items labelled 'defence'.
                      Military 'spending' is more indicative at how effective the goverrment of a country is rather than any real military capability.

                      I wonder how much China spends on affermitiva action such as gay rights programs or retrofiting fighter ejection seat for women wighing under 160 pounds

                      I wounder how much the russian navy is spending on bio-diesel.

                      I wonder how much the norks are paying for pensions.

                      There is no way to reasonably measure spending as things cost more or les in differenent counties or systems. You can only measure the output of that spending. How may boot on the ground, how many ships afloat (at full capability). Only Then you can look at how efffective the spend per unit was.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Prospekt Mira View Post
                        The only problem is that even this diagram does not reflect what is being spent. As it only compares spending on items labelled 'defence'.
                        Military 'spending' is more indicative at how effective the goverrment of a country is rather than any real military capability.

                        I wonder how much China spends on affermitiva action such as gay rights programs or retrofiting fighter ejection seat for women wighing under 160 pounds

                        I wounder how much the russian navy is spending on bio-diesel.

                        I wonder how much the norks are paying for pensions.

                        There is no way to reasonably measure spending as things cost more or les in differenent counties or systems. You can only measure the output of that spending. How may boot on the ground, how many ships afloat (at full capability). Only Then you can look at how efffective the spend per unit was.

                        I actually read that china spends tons of cash modifying there older gear so that thetr new taller and wider troops can fit in them. This is becsuse in the 50s 60scand 70s the average Chinese solder was tiny and skiny due to poor diet. All so between 40 to 60 percent of there training is politcal indoctrination.


                        Russian navy is spend to much on keeping out dated ships floating to buy bio dissiel.
                        you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                        CPO Mzinyati

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                          Current builds where actually cheaper than some European fighters...
                          Not that it changes much in some eyes.
                          1 witch european fighter

                          2 we dont yet know theccost to maintain a f35

                          3 have s you seen the f35c cost. Is America subsidising the other models atvthe expense of the USN?
                          you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                          CPO Mzinyati

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                            1 witch european fighter

                            2 we don't yet know the cost to maintain a f35

                            3 have s you seen the f35c cost. Is America subsidising the other models atvthe expense of the USN?
                            1: I was a bit off from what I can find, but even so the Rafal is not much cheaper in any event, on the other hand what was that deal for that Indian buy for them? 300ish million or something like that?
                            Typhoon was not that cheap depending on who got them and when... I have seen prices for 112ish million USD for a UK block 2... (one wrinkle is I do not know if this is unit cost of system cost, likely system...)

                            2: Perhaps true

                            3: The Cost of the Current build F-35s with engine is between 110 and 150 million USD (LRIP 8, in production now), the other prices that get thrown around are either factoring in the cost of the supporting infrastructure that needs to get built, or are using the cost of early production aircraft as the cost of newer aircraft or perhaps both.

                            For example the F-35s LRIP 1 & 2 aircraft costs for an A model was over 150 million USD, LRIP 8 cost is ~95 million and that is with out engine (add ~15 million)

                            Then theirs the ones who feel that they need to add in R&D costs...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You kind of need to add RnD cost.

                              Both the euro fighter and rafal are better thanvthe f35 in many key areas.
                              you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                              CPO Mzinyati

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X