Military Aircraft Thread

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by belka

Tell me, what such combat aircraft could we procure for a fraction of the cost?

The super hornet.. 1/2 (<--fraction of F35 cost) the price of the F35.

[cressydrift]

Irak : Premières frappes françaises - YouTube

[tofu1413]

been seeing a lot of F35 news lately...


with all the time they wasted they could've just recycled another awesome design in place of the F35 (well cept the VTOL capability..)





a scaled down YF 23 for production would be pretty awesome. Always been a big fan of how futuristic the Black widow design is.

[belka]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

The super hornet.. 1/2 (<--fraction of F35 cost) the price of the F35.

No. Its not. I explained this in post 1096.

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by belka

No. Its not. I explained this in post 1096.

Im going to assume that the numbers you've used for the JSF in that post are based on the "program of record figures", which are merely the amount of jets a given country would "like" to buy, rather than the actual jets that have been paid for. So, in that sense if countries begin to reduce the size of their orders or abandon the program all together, costs will evidently rise and those numbers are subject to change.

I would argue that the current political climate amongst many of the partner nations are not conducive to expanding the number of jets acquired. Italy (partner nation) has already reduced the amount of jets it intends to procure and seeing as how austerity isn't done with the Italian coffers, that number could dwindle again.

Denmark (another partner nation) hasn't even decided on whether or not it will choose the JSF. That decision should be coming in 2015.

Perhaps the most poignant of customers is the U.S. DoD. Their order nearly doubles that of all the partners put together. If the current fiscal debating continues in Washington and the pressures from influential spheres on public spending continue to advocate a reduction in the scale of this procurement process, then the U.S order may fall as well.

So, essentially the tides are shifting towards higher expenditures associated with this aircraft. All it takes is one country to bail on the program or produce another reduced order and the costs go up.

[belka]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

Im going to assume that the numbers you've used for the JSF in that post are based on the "program of record figures", which are merely the amount of jets a given country would "like" to buy, rather than the actual jets that have been paid for. So, in that sense if countries begin to reduce the size of their orders or abandon the program all together, costs will evidently rise and those numbers are subject to change.

I would argue that the current political climate amongst many of the partner nations are not conducive to expanding the number of jets acquired. Italy (partner nation) has already reduced the amount of jets it intends to procure and seeing as how austerity isn't done with the Italian coffers, that number could dwindle again.

Denmark (another partner nation) hasn't even decided on whether or not it will choose the JSF. That decision should be coming in 2015.

Perhaps the most poignant of customers is the U.S. DoD. Their order nearly doubles that of all the partners put together. If the current fiscal debating continues in Washington and the pressures from influential spheres on public spending continue to advocate a reduction in the scale of this procurement process, then the U.S order may fall as well.

So, essentially the tides are shifting towards higher expenditures associated with this aircraft. All it takes is one country to bail on the program or produce another reduced order and the costs go up.

You still fail to prove how there are fighters out there "a fraction" the cost of the f35

[BoostedBB6]

The current flyaway cost for an F35 is something like $218 million per aircraft.
Super Hornet is $61 million per aircraft.

So that being said you could buy 3.7 F18E/F's for the cost of one F35.
Both costs are for the US market in USD.

But this is just for the aircraft, not any supporting systems/crew/equipment for these jets. However the F18E/F would require a lot less learning and changes than going to a new platform but its still a stop gap measure in the long run.
The F35 would be an effective fighter for the next 30-40 years for Canada (probably 100 as they dont like to spend money) but the F18 will quickly become outdated in 20 years time and then having to spend even more to replace those then....

I dont know much about budgets and technical stuff, and frankly my opinion on it all means nothing other than for conversation sake.

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by belka

You still fail to prove how there are fighters out there "a fraction" the cost of the f35

You seem quite fixated on my use of the term "fraction of the cost". At face value the term is broad in its most general sense. The point I was trying to make was that there are cheaper alternatives to provide us with interim lift in the immediate future. Perhaps when the program matures and production rates are up, Canada could make a full fledged commitment to acquring a set number of JSFs.

Correct me if im wrong, but the vibe im getting from you is that you staunchly support the acquisition of the F35 for Canada? Id like to know why and if in fact your position is flexible in any way regarding the possibility of another candidate aircraft?

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

the real solution will just be drones.

drones will be cheaper and more effective every year that passes.

just let them fumble around with this project, the planes wont even see combat or whatever. it's just to satisfy some military complex and to "keep up" with others.

eventually they'll just be swarms of drones that can out perform humans... within the next 25 years.

i think we'll have the technology within 15 years, but it will take time to adapt.

[RRxtar]

^ thats why i said get the upgraded superhornets now at a cheaper price with a more reliable and proven platform, because regardless of what jet you have now, in 25 years it is going to be obsolete with drones doing all the dirty work.

the superhornets will still serve any function canada needs with air sovereignty of the north, and fulfill our nato obligations for well into the future. canada isn't going to go head to head with any 5th+ gen fighters. our fighters are going to be for assisting in bombing 3rd world countries, and squirting the drunk russians off our property with a hose when they stumble over after a few too many vodkas.

im pretty certain in the future the current 5th gen fighters are going to be looked at as a major unnecessary expense. way too much money to fulfill a roll that doesnt currently exist, and in the future will not be needed.

[belka]

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6

The current flyaway cost for an F35 is something like $218 million per aircraft.
Super Hornet is $61 million per aircraft.

I still don't understand why people make these types of comments. The initial cost projections for F-35 (a less capable version) in 2001 was approx US$45 million. With inflation that is approx US$60 million today. Even with the increased capability of the jet since that time the F-35 is projected to cost approx US$85 million in 2019 dollars, so 25% or so over the initial projections.

JSF price sinks to US$80-85m

However the F18E/F would require a lot less learning and changes than going to a new platform.

The similarities between our hornet and the superhornet is about 20%. They are pretty much completely different aircraft aside from the exterior and a few avionic components.

Besides, the SuperHornet will soon be dead anyway...

Boeing shifts focus off fighter jets - St. Louis Business Journal

Originally Posted by Infiniti

Perhaps when the program matures and production rates are up, Canada could make a full fledged commitment to acquring a set number of JSFs.

We aren't set to acquire/purchase whatever until 2016 or at this rate even later. By then the F35 will be affordable enough that we could get 65 for the budgeted $40 billion over the 25 year operational service.

Correct me if im wrong, but the vibe im getting from you is that you staunchly support the acquisition of the F35 for Canada? Id like to know why and if in fact your position is flexible in any way regarding the possibility of another candidate aircraft?

There is no other candidate. Government already said they aren't buying European aircraft and the Super Hornet line is slowing down and will be shut down within the next few years with no orders.

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by belka

We aren't set to acquire/purchase whatever until 2016 or at this rate even later. By then the F35 will be affordable enough that we could get 65 for the budgeted $40 billion over the 25 year operational service.



There is no other candidate. Government already said they aren't buying European aircraft and the Super Hornet line is slowing down and will be shut down within the next few years with no orders.

Hmm..the program could have a very different makeup by 2016 and as I implied in my previous post, the change may not represent a lower price. I suppose we will have a better idea when some of the other partner nations make their decisions in the near future which may or may not provide a show of confidence to the JSF program.

The Super Hornet line is not officially being terminated. Boeing is simply engaging in a wait and see process. If within a certain timeframe they don't manage to secure a sufficient amount of orders then it will be shut down.

Seeing as how 2015 is an election year, the Harper government is expected to hold off on their decision vis a vis the jets. This essentially means that Canada would make a choice without actually choosing due to the probability of Boeing not offering the Superhornet by then. Then again, the current ongoing review of the whole procurement process could just be a whole lot of smoke and mirrors in order to appease critics/public.

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

the real solution will just be drones.

drones will be cheaper and more effective every year that passes.

just let them fumble around with this project, the planes wont even see combat or whatever. it's just to satisfy some military complex and to "keep up" with others.

eventually they'll just be swarms of drones that can out perform humans... within the next 25 years.

i think we'll have the technology within 15 years, but it will take time to adapt.

Ulic, I too am a firm believer that drones will takeover most (if not all) combat air operations, but as of today drone technology is nowhere near ready to perform air to air combat roles just yet.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

Ulic, I too am a firm believer that drones will takeover all human operations, but as of today drone technology is nowhere near ready to perform air to air combat roles just yet.

fixed. lol

they're not ready no. but they will be in the near future.

what i was saying is, there's no point bickering about this shit. the government will do something and make a decision and it will be in the "best" interest of the public and the nation (including all factors, especially money).

whatever the decision is, won't really matter unless we go into world war 3. it will just hold us off until drones.

just like the f-22 never saw combat till now (even though i think their deployment was kinda forced... just for the sake of them being used in real life)... i don't think any next gen fighter will have any real role... it's just "in case"...

and anyway, if we have some global or national issue that actually required high tech jets to defend lives... like a serious issue... don't worry, i say with no doubt that suddenly canada will mysteriously find enough money to purchase what we need to get the shit done.

the only reason there is debate now is because there is no shit to get done. there's no high tech battle approaching our borders. if there were, there would be no debate. we would have those jets in our hands already and already be testing other jets just "in case" lol.

[PiuYi]

&#x202a;Last of the Dogfighters&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

[tofu1413]

A page out of macross. X9 Ghost Drone Fighter! One manned fighter controlling 3-4 of these things.


VF25

[BoostedBB6]

Originally Posted by belka

I still don't understand why people make these types of comments. The initial cost projections for F-35 (a less capable version) in 2001 was approx US$45 million. With inflation that is approx US$60 million today. Even with the increased capability of the jet since that time the F-35 is projected to cost approx US$85 million in 2019 dollars, so 25% or so over the initial projections.

JSF price sinks to US$80-85m



The similarities between our hornet and the superhornet is about 20%. They are pretty much completely different aircraft aside from the exterior and a few avionic components.

Besides, the SuperHornet will soon be dead anyway...

Boeing shifts focus off fighter jets - St. Louis Business Journal



We aren't set to acquire/purchase whatever until 2016 or at this rate even later. By then the F35 will be affordable enough that we could get 65 for the budgeted $40 billion over the 25 year operational service.



There is no other candidate. Government already said they aren't buying European aircraft and the Super Hornet line is slowing down and will be shut down within the next few years with no orders.

I'm basing everything I am saying on current (factual) information provided about these aircraft.
You are providing your guestimate on the cost (which can change dramatically as we have already seen)

As for Canada purchasing a less capable version for a reduced price....if thats the case then why bother purchasing a less capable aircraft. One that will be flown with external drop tanks that compromise its only benefit that it could offer to Canada over the Hornet? (this is purely for argument sake). Personally I am not a fan of the Hornet and have never been. If they were to buy any 4+ aircraft Canada should get the F16E/F but for some reason they feel they need that extra engine.

20% similar is better than 0% similar. Thats a 20% reduction in costs associated with re-training/re-fitting units to operate the F18E/F. Seems like a good idea form that standpoint.

[BoostedBB6]

Originally Posted by tofu1413

A page out of macross. X9 Ghost Drone Fighter! One manned fighter controlling 3-4 of these things.


VF25

YF-23 and Rafeal bastard child.

F14 and Su-35 love child.....mmmmm if only life were like the old shows :P

[tofu1413]

Then theres the YF19

[belka]

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6

20% similar is better than 0% similar. Thats a 20% reduction in costs associated with re-training/re-fitting units to operate the F18E/F. Seems like a good idea form that standpoint.

It doesn't work that way. A new course is still a new course. You don't do 80% of the training on the new aircraft type because you already "know" or think you know the other 20%. The support equipment and parts are not interchangeable anyway. The aircraft only look kinda the same.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by belka

I still don't understand why people make these types of comments. The initial cost projections for F-35 (a less capable version) in 2001 was approx US$45 million. With inflation that is approx US$60 million today. Even with the increased capability of the jet since that time the F-35 is projected to cost approx US$85 million in 2019 dollars, so 25% or so over the initial projections.

JSF price sinks to US$80-85m

Granted, these are numbers from last year, but I think this is about as reliable as you'll get for pricing for both airframes. At least for the public's eye, anyway.

F-18 Super Hornet
$60.9 Million USD (Flyaway cost)
Source: USA DOD Fiscal Report (http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/1...BA1-4_BOOK.pdf)

F-35 Lightning II
F-35A: $124.8 Million USD (Flyaway cost)
F-35B: $156.8 Million USD (Flyaway cost)
F-35C: $142.6 Million USD (Flyaway cost)
Source: GAO Report on the F35 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf)

Admittedly those F-35 costs are projected to drop on average around $40 Million USD once 2019 rolls around, so the price becomes slightly more manageable. However, simply based on last year's costs, buying an F-35 today doesn't seem fiscally responsible.

[BoostedBB6]

belka, 20% similar means 20% of the existing equipment is compatible, 20% of there knowledge is transferable, 20% less work to "learn" the new aircraft.
Those things may not have a direct cost, but there end result means less funds needed to equip them to use this new aircraft.

And no matter what what you cut it, the F35 is 40-60million dollars more per unit than the F18E/F. Thats not something that's chump change.

[Tegra_Devil]

Canada to funnel money into upgrades to keep CF-18 fighter jets flying
Canada to funnel money into upgrades to keep CF-18 fighter jets flying - The Globe and Mail

The Canadian government will pay for maintenance and upgrades to extend the life of the country’s aging CF-18 fighters so they last until about 2025, sources say – a strong sign that Ottawa is far from ready to pick a new warplane.

The federal government will also make the next required payment to keep alive its partnership in the Joint Strike Fighter program producing the controversial F-35 fighter-bomber, the sources say. The contribution, in the $25-million to $30-million range, means Canada will still be able to buy the plane at a slight discount if it chooses and, in the meantime, Canadian companies remain eligible to bid on supply contracts for the project.

Taken together, these measures suggest Stephen Harper’s government is hedging its bets in the face of a difficult decision. The CF-18 life extension shows the Conservatives are preparing for the possibility that it could take years to select and acquire a new fighter. Remaining in the F-35 consortium indicates Ottawa refuses to close the door on purchasing the warplane despite controversy about its cost and effectiveness.

The developments come as the Conservative cabinet is discussing this week a request to join U.S.-led air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq – and CF-18s and refuelling planes would be a part of that mission.

The Tories initially announced in 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s without entertaining rival bids, but then backed off in the face of heavy criticism that this decision was made without due diligence and the full $45-billion cost of the planes had been hidden from public view.

They restarted the procurement process in 2012, trying once again to pick a new fighter.

The last multibillion-dollar life extension project undertaken by the Canadian military prolonged the life of 80 CF-18 jets until 2020. As of May, 2014, data showed 77 fighters were still in operation.

The new life-extension upgrades – to move the planes’ best-before date to roughly 2025 – will cost tens of millions and possibly more than $100-million, sources say.

Canada’s CF-18 warplanes are currently conducting air policing over the Baltic states, a NATO effort to ward off Russian aggression.

The Globe and Mail reported in May the average age of the CF-18 jet fighters was 27 1/2 years old, which means an operating life dating back to the fall of 1986, when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev held Cold War talks in Iceland. Data in May showed 27 – or more than one-third of the jets – had logged more than 6,000 flying hours and one has exceeded 7,000 hours.

It’s looking increasingly unlikely that the government will choose a new jet fighter before the 2015 election.

The government, which took a serious credibility hit over its poor management of the fighter-procurement process last time, has little to gain from a swift pick.

On the other hand, the Conservatives face the prospect that opposition parties might capitalize on the unspent jet funding and propose a more politically attractive use for the billions of dollars during the next election campaign.

“Cabinet will not rush a decision,” a source familiar with deliberations said.

As The Globe and Mail reported in April, Ottawa is considering two main options for its plans to commit $45-billion to controversial new fighter jets – and both point back to Lockheed Martin F-35 as the clear front-runner.

These leading choices are: buy a fleet of 65 F-35s without seeking competing bids, or launch a competition that, based on technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft.

Separately, on Monday, with Canada apparently poised to join air strikes against Islamic State militants, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird promised the Tories would bring a vote on any combat missions to the Commons.

“The opposition are demanding a debate and vote in Parliament on a combat mission. They are pushing against an open door. This Prime Minister and this government have always brought such matters before this House and have always had a vote, and that is exactly what we will do,” Mr. Baird said.

The Conservatives’ majority in the Commons means a combat deployment vote would easily pass.

While he wouldn’t discuss cabinet’s plans, the Foreign Affairs Minister made it clear that the government is ready to increase its contribution to the coalition.

“This fanatical terrorist organization is a direct threat to people in the region, to our allies and to Canada. We think it is important to play a constructive role,” Mr. Baird said.

[Ash Eater]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

the real solution will just be drones.

drones will be cheaper and more effective every year that passes.

just let them fumble around with this project, the planes wont even see combat or whatever. it's just to satisfy some military complex and to "keep up" with others.

eventually they'll just be swarms of drones that can out perform humans... within the next 25 years.

i think we'll have the technology within 15 years, but it will take time to adapt.

lol can anyone tell me exactly while people suck the dick of drones so hard? How is it that taking the pilot out of the plane and putting them in control room is going
to make the plane any less expensive? Drones are not cheaper than fighter jets. Cheap drones are cheaper than fighter jets! Imagine that, but cheap drones are
incapable of the same tasks that fighter jets are capable of. Air to air combat, supersonic flight, exceptional maneuverability, low observability, high payload, all these things that make fighter jets actually useful against opposing fighter jets, or for penetrating interdiction. You do not get these with cheap drones. You could definitely build an expensive drone to do those things, but you wouldn't save a fucking dime.

But you're not even talking about using drones to save money in any sensical way. I mean, you're suggesting that these manned fighters Canada is going to purchase will see no use (which makes no sense. Why lock your car if it's not in the process of being stolen hurr durr), but at the same time saying we should replace them with just as capable planes with ADVANCED AI? What? How is this saving money? If these fighters are never going to see use, why develop or buy these expensive drones that are better than them? How is not having an air force for "the next 25 years" (where did you get this number, dude?), and then dropping tons of cash on AI development, and the plane this AI needs to sit in smart at all? What is so special about these next some odd decades between now and when we have advanced AI controlled drones that we should not buy new fighter jets, but then after that period, buy the new drones? Do you think that having the plane controlled by AI makes it cheaper? That AI can take a cheap 50Kn engine and have it outperform a human controlled 100Kn?

Seriously, someone tell me why people keep saying drones drones drones, fighter jets are a waste.

The only thing modern "cheap" drones are good for (MQ-9 for example) is observation/CAS/interdiction in completely undefended airspace. They're great for dropping a couple missiles on some insurgents (as long as it's just a couple, and you don't have to be there quickly), but as soon as the enemy has any air defense, they're inferior to a fighter jet at doing anything. But of course, this IS the solution is it not? The last country we were at war with that had any air defense was North Korea perhaps? Be that as it may, it lacks any foresight to completely de-claw your military from being able to do anything to opposing fighter jets, or if the enemy has air defense. Are all important wars that require expensive planes completely telegraphed to the point where you can purchase a fleet, and train all the pilots in the time before you need them?

No, and that's why Canada should have a half decent fleet of fighter jets.

Also here's something fun for people that think man controlled drones > manned fighters. Did you know that RADAR jamming is pretty damn effective? Did you know that drones are controlled with radio waves? What do you think happens when the enemy has good RADAR jamming in an area you're trying to fly your drone in? lol

[Ash Eater]

also this is a very good read for those that are interested in educating themselves about what "stealth" actually does

http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazon...dar%20Game.pdf