The True Cost of the F-35: $48.7 Billion
Something needs to be said about this business of the government “hiding” $10 billion in costs on the F-35, suggesting the cost was only $15 billion when it was “really” $25 billion. Well, it’s true that they lied about the cost being $15 billion. It’s true that they’re lying now about this just being a misunderstanding about accounting — if that was true, why wouldn’t they have said so when the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with his $30 billion figure, rather than accusing him of simply making it up?
But it’s also true that the $25 billion figure is still cooked. It’s baloney. It’s based on obsolete pricing data, and on a “plan” for the use of this jet fighter which can only be descirbed as bogus: the notion that we will only be using the plane for 20 years before it is replaced. Obviously this is not true. We will be using the CF-18s for around 30-40 years. The F-35 will be around at least that long. DND’s long-term plan starts at 36 years’s use for the F-35, and presumably goes up from there. So, what will the F-35 actually cost us?
It’s not an easy question to answer, but here’s an analysis based on current costs. First, buying 65 aircraft is supposed to cost $9 billion. Based on current analysis from the Pentagon, that cost should be more like $10.5 billion. It’s true the Americans may end up paying a slightly different figure per plane than we do, but it’s a safe bet that if their purchase costs are going up, ours are too. Contrary to Harper’s prating during last year’s election, we’ve signed a memorandum of understanding fixing research and development costs, not a “contract” fixing the purchase price.
Second, sustainment and operating costs. The official figure is either $6 billion (public figure) or $16.2 billion (internal figure). Neither is correct, because that’s based on using them just 20 years and then replacing them with another, even more expensive aircraft. Figure the true lifespan will be 40 years — slightly longer than DND’s current plan, but much shorter than the Americans’ 50-year use strategy. Unless you’re prepared to believe that Canada will be replacing the F-35 30 years before the Americans do. Yeah, right.
That means the operating costs will be about $32.5 billion — provided, as I’m sure everyone who’s ever owned a badly aging car will agree 
, that maintenance costs in its 40th year will be the same as maintenance costs in its 10th year.
Third, the government will need to purchase new F-35s along the way in order to cover losses, attrition, etc. In the official public estimates, the government claims it will lose or retire a single airframe, ever, in the entire life cycle of the F-35. But DND admitted to the Auditor-General that it would need to purchase at least 14 additional aicraft, given current assumptions about attrition. That’s another $2.2 billion.
Fourth, the government has suggested there will be no need for software or hardware upgrades over the next 40 years, apparently based on the very wise observation that the computer technology I’m using to write this blog is pretty much the same as I could have purchased off the shelf in 1973 (help me out on this, older readers: I’m not off base here, am I?). The Auditor-General suggests this will be $1.2 billion over the fake 20-year lifecycle, which means it will be at least $2.5 billion over my realistic 40 year life cycle.
Finally, the Auditor General notes that the current F-35 budget provides enough weapons and other combat-related supplies to keep each plane in operation 45 days. Seems to me this could be left out of the budget (we’d need the weapons regardless of what plane we bought), but since DND included the 45-day estimate (total: $300 million) in the public budget, I’ll include it in mine too. That $300 million figure is for 20 years, and builds in use of existing stock from the retiring CF-18 fighters. Assuming a doubled lifespan, the exhaustion of the CF-18 reserve weapons, and rising costs to do with more sophisticated combat technology, it seems reasonable to tack on another $1 billion. Of course, if we choose never to use the plane in combat, it’ll be somewhat cheaper.
That leaves us with a grand total of $48.7 billion. Assuming, once again, that some time within the next 40 years the Royal Canadian Air Force will become so well funded that it can afford to replace its F-35s one or more decades before the Americans replace their F-35s. If we stretch it out to 50 years the way they plan to, our costs approach $60 billion.
Of course, it’s worth wondering whether we’ll still be using manned jet fighters for any purpose into the 2060s or 2070s. But the Americans say we will be. And we can all trust the Americans, can’t we?
Tweet
MoS
Actually I’m coming to suspect a 20-year life for the F-35 may be realistic. As I explore the technical deficiencies and vulnerabilities of this technology and what our unnamed ‘enemies’ already have underway to counter it, I’m far from convinced the 35 will still be viable, in a stealth context, by the time it reaches our hangars.
The F-35 may be the ultimate, perhaps even the most disastrous, example of preparing to fight ‘the last war.’ It’s intended to defeat conventional, X-band radars, and conventional air defences, mainstream 20th Century technologies. I’m beginning to think a new era in warfare, one the F-35 is ill prepared to face, was ushered in just before Christmas when the Iranians captured and safely landed a state of the art, Lockheed/USAF RQ-170 stealth drone that had been on a spy mission over Tehran. Most everyone overlooked the significance of that but it’s becoming increasingly apparent it was the opening shot in a new paradigm of warfare, cyber-war.
MoS
I’ll just finish that thought. The authoritative and reliable publication AviationWeek is reporting that our potential adversaries are already preparing for the F-35 and its supporting AWACS and Joint Stars command aircraft. They’re devising ways to turn all three aircraft’s sensors into windows through which they can implant malware into their systems, while they’re in the air and totally vulnerable to computer failure.
It now appears the Iranians used that very same technique to seize control of the Americans’ stealth drone and bring it down for a safe landing.
If this is the direction 21st century warfare is headed, the supposed stealth factor becomes greatly discounted.
sushi
Re 1973 Computer hardware and software.
If you were writing this in 1973 you would first write a word processing program in PL1 to run on a time shared mainframe. This program would take the form of a punch card deck.
Your text would also be entered on a punch card deck and then formatted according to your word processing program.
Output would be via dot matrix printing on fanfold paper or to another card deck or to 8 level TTY punched paper tape.
You would have to mail this output to each of your viewers as there was no public network nor any common network standards.
—
The F-35 will not be operational in 20 years. I do not think it will ever be operational beyond a prototype and extant test builds.
It has already been supassed by the Sukhoi PAK FA which is a 5th generation interceptor able to defeat the VLO characteristics of the F-35 due to incorporating L-Band rader in the wing leading edges. The Chinese are also readying their own 5th generation fighter the J-20.
The only comporable aircraft to the PAK FA is the US F-22 which the US refuses to export and for which the production line is now closed. The F-22 is a 5th generation fighter. The F-35 is barely a 4.5 generation fighter.
The F-35 wil never go to production because no one will want it including the USAF and US Navy. Without those two onboard there will not be enough global demand to make the F-35 economically viable.
I expect we will see the air interceptor transition to some form of unmanned remotely operated missile armed aircraft.
sushi
MoS:
You are correct.
A big problem with the F-35 is that for range it is dependent on air tankers and for intercept data it needs to interface with an AWACs.
This presents a number of problems.
1) Since these are US resources it means that Canadian air interception is only viable where we have US support. No US support and the F-35 is little better than a Piper Cub.
Does not say much for Canadian sovereignty especially in light of the fact that the US disputes Canadian territorial claims to the NW Passage.
2) The opposition realizes that they need not seek to defeat the F-35. All they need to do is defeat the tankers and AWACs. These are big fat slow targets and have no stealth capability whatsoever. Bring them down and the F-35 is almost blind.
The Sukhoi PAK FA can outrun the F-35 in a tail chase and has better internal fuel stores than the F-35. Plus it has L-Band radar which defeats the VLO characteristics of the F-35.
MoS
I think the PAK is still years away from being operational. That said, the L-band radar (as I understand it) is being fitted to the SU-35S.
As the RAND Corporation determined, the F-35 cannot fly with the SU-35S. It is woefully inferior on speed, climb rate, turn rate, range and weapons payload. In other words, it’s dead meat. And the Russians seem to have been busy expanding their useful range of their IR sensors. They now claim an 80 km. range. The F-35, by the way, has an extremely hot tail and would have a lot of trouble defeating modern IR missiles.
As for those tankers and AWACS, bring them down and the F-35 has to rely on its own radars. The real problem it faces is it has no way home. That’s what the Australian simulation found. It was a one-mission air war for the F-35.
sushi
” A one-mission air war for the F-35″
Agreed.
Which means we are being expected to pay over $25 billion for an aircraft which looks really keen at airshows but is a single use disposable in a combat environment.
We have a Minister of Defense who does not understand this. The air force is just a glorified air taxi service to him and to the CPC.
Sixth Estate
sushi — Thanks for the detail, although I did intend that sarcastically. Yes, I’m familiar with the limitations of early 1970s computer tech.
With respect to the timeline, maybe 20 years is realistic and maybe it isn’t. If there’s going to be a new arms race over advanced jet technology from China and Russia, then yes, erring on the short side is probably justifiable. But DND’s plans are to use it for AT LEAST 36 years, and DOD in the U.S. is saying 50 years. Either way, costing a plane out over 20 years for the public but planning in private for its use over 36-50 years counts as blatant dishonesty in my books.
ktron
Single use disposable?
Maybe we should be contracting out to Gillette or Bic instead of Lockheed – they both have better track records in volume production and lower fatality rates among their users too . . .
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=113
sushi
SE -
Found this on Wikipedia:
The total lifecycle cost for the entire American fleet is estimated to be US$1.51 trillion over its 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.[15] Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway similarly estimated that his country’s 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.[16]
EndQuote
Harper and Co have estimated a per unit cost of $75–80 million.
Sixth Estate
Yes, I saw that too. In fairness the $75 million figure is just the initial purchase cost, not the overall cost (but that figure is also lower than the corresponding American and Norwegian price figures).
Don’t worry, I’m sure the Americans have no idea what their own planes are going to cost them.
Saskboy
This could all be solved if we made the Air Force pay it’s own way, instead of getting by solely on the public dime. Sell advertising. Switch them to the for-profit model of warfare.
BCLaraby
Harper actually said ‘the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of [F-35] costs”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Va35YI3u2lY
Purple Library Guy
The Cons have also more recently said that we haven’t signed a contract at all and may not even get the F-35. So, which time is he lying? Well, it could be both . . . I believe there’s some kind of nonbinding MoU. But there’s no way that would actually shelter us from cost increases. Frankly, there’s no way we’ll get those planes for an initial purchase price much like what’s being advertised now.
Also, are there not some costs associated with refitting those planes, adding bits to them, before the Canadian forces can use them in ways approximating properly? The cited purchase prices are with stuff missing as I understand it. More costs there.
Saskboy
At one point it was rumoured the costs didn’t include a little extra… engines.
Sixth Estate
You make a good point, Saskboy. Living on public subsidies creates laziness and curbs innovation. The air force would be run much more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. And so on, and so forth, right?
Regarding engines, you’re half right. Our actual F-35 purchase proposal is minus the engines. The purchase figure I gave apparently builds in the extra costs for the engines though. In this case I suspect they’re being honest, because I’m sure if the engines really weren’t included, the AG would have pointed it out. On the other hand, the figures aren’t broken down, and it would be interesting to see those figure broken down. The engines take up a substantial amount of the total purchase cost.
PLG — We have an MOU committing us to research contributions. That gives us the right, but not the obligation, to purchase aircraft at the end of the process. We do not have a contract, and you’re right, it’s preposterous to think we’ve been able to negotiate a fixed price out of Lockheed but no one else has.
Oh, wait, of course it’s totally believable. We’re an “energy superpower” with one of the best foreign affairs ministers in our history. I’m sure we would have been able to weasel a fixed cost out of them given our government’s proven expertise in the fine arts of negotiation and compromise.
The purchase price breakdown includes the aircraft themselves, a category called “Canadian modifications,” and then various other categories: weapons, infrastructure, etc., etc. Whether they capture ALL the additional upgrades or not, I couldn’t tell you. The AG did note that several billion dollars in expected upgrades and modifications down the road were left out of the costing.
sushi
What is most disturbing about this entire debate is that the entire focus is on costs.
What is the mission these aircraft are intended to undertake?
My sense of this is that the miliary just wants to keep up with the Joneses and be able to bomb folks in the middle east.
If the mission is arctic air patrols then the F-35 is poorly suited as it lacks range. We could perform arctic air patrols much more cheaply with remotely piloted drones.
If the mission is air interception then the F-35 is already outclassed by Russian, Indian, and Chinese 5th generation aircraft.
If the mission is job creation and industrial benefits we could achieve this much more cheaply via different initiatives.
If the mission is to maintain full employment in DND and provide photo-ops for Harper and gang then the F-35 is a good choice. And for this mission profile no engines are required which will help keep costs down.
In and Out: Political Double Tap | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff
[...] used to make it an easier sell, and it still flopped. Imagine if the government had opened with the $48B price tag, [...]
MoS
No country, none, is going to get anything remotely like 50-years out of this airplane. It’s not a Fifth Generation anything. It’s a Second Generation stealth light bomber, successor to the F-117B.
Like any radical new technology system, it will be superceded, rendered obsolete sooner than the wise men today claim. That’s because it’s not a mature technology system.
Gens 1 to 4, in general terms, represented a linear progression of technology and performance. Stealth is a different species. That’s why it reset the parameters for speed, range, payload, climb rate, agility – they key elements that were advanced in Gens 1-4. It’s a total reordering of priorities. It ramps down most conventional capabilities in a tradeoff for stealth. And day by day we’re learning that tradeoff may not be operationally cost -effective. It could, in fact, be an enormous blunder.
When you introduce a new species of warplane of this sort’s sophistication and complexity, you’re signing on to years of trial and error development. To expect any company to get it right, straight out of the box is just plain silly. Yet that is what we’re being told the F-35 is – right, straight out of the box.
F-35 Lies by Harper and MacKay | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff
[...] more accurate accounting can be found publicly, than from our Prime Minister. That’s a disgrace, especially around a [...]
Sixth Estate
MoS — Yes, probably. But don’t be too quick on this; we’re going to get 30+ years out of the CF-18s and the Americans are planning on 80 years for their remaining B-52s. Upgrades, and all that. As long as we don’t end up in a new arms race, it’ll be fine.
In the meantime, while you may well be right, DND’s public figures say 20 years, their internal ones say 36 years, and the DOD figures say 50 years. Whether the 20-year figure is going to prove right or not, I think it’s unethical to tell the public a costing estimate based on one set of numbers, while privately you’re actually working with an entirely different set. And based on the long-term life cycle plans for the F-35, my figure is the correct one.
Sixth Estate
Just to be clear, the idea that we will be using these planes for around 40 years isn’t coming from me. It’s coming from DND, where costing has been run out to 36 years and where the Department apparently plans for use beyond that date as well.
sushi
Just to clarify issues regarding airframe life.
Any airframe is only capable of x number of operational hours before airframe fatigue renders the plane unsafe.
They B-52 can go 80 years as it was designed back in the old days when the engineers added in “safety factors” to account for the fact they didn’t really have a true understanding of all the design issues. To put this another way the B-52 was overbuilt. Second factor on the B-52 is that the remaining fleet is composed of SAC alert aircraft which did not accumulate a lot of flying hours. If you don’t fly the airframe you will greatly extend the life of the aircraft. It is like keeping your car in a heated garage and only taking it onto the street on nice summer days.
If they don’t fly the F-35 it will last forever and there is no need for engines on a static aircraft.
But MoS once again has it right. We are essentially buying an aircraft which will be obsolete at the time it enters service. I stand by my prediction that no one will buy the F-35 and it will drop into the rabbit hole of history.
I have my fingers crossed that P MacKay drops into the same hole.
Sixth Estate
That’s quite possible (and I share your hopes). Do I seriously expect the F-35 to be in the air 30, 40, or 80 years from now? Not really. There are already plans to replace at least about one-quarter of aircraft to make up for attrition. That would rise depending on how long they’re in service. It’s not a matter of individual airframes, it’s a matter of the program as a whole.
My point is very simply this: DND is internally planning on a lifecycle of 36+ years, but it is giving the public a costing figure based on a lifecycle of 20 years. That’s what makes the latter number a lie. Now, it might well be that the F-35 is only in service 20 years (or more, or less, or none at all), and the final expenditure would reflect that. But if the planned lifecycle is 36+ years, then the estimated costs must be for a lifecycle of 36+ years. Anything less is a lie.
That’s all I’m trying to say here.
Simon
There is no way we’ll be using manned fighter jets even in 5 or 10 years.
Here’s an example of an unmanned fighter-bomber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis
Mark Collins
Simon: More to the point is what the USN is doing:
“How many USAF F-35s? Can the USN Deploy UCAVs Instead?” (see in particular also comment 2.)
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=958
But that is all about strike and ISR.
For continental air defence UCAVs are a long way away. Just for one thing no gov’t will be willing to chance an unmanned aircraft (however controlled) shooting down by mistake a civilian airline deemed a terrorist threat–nor in error an approaching, whatever the situation, Russian bomber.
Also no-one is yet thinking very seriously of UCAVs in air-to-air combat.
Manned (“crewed” to be PC) fighters still have a long life-span.
Mark
Ottawa
sushi
Mark – the unstated concern in the link you posted is the problem the USN faces operating offshore China. The Chinese are developing 5th generation aircraft (Chengdu J-20) which have the range to pose a threat to CVN operating 500k from the Chinese coast.
The USN solution to this is to deploy UCAVs to permit the CVNs to remain further offshore while the UCAVs push toward the shore and create a screen for the carriers.
If the USN is moving toward UCAVs for this mission there is much less need for the carrier version of the F-35.
If you look at the F-35 what you have is a weapons platform dependent on sensor data relayed in from a distant AWACs. Given this fact there is no reason one could not replace the F-35 with a UCAV and a weapons loadout with all targeting info being relayed in from an orbiting AWACs.
If the USN is contemplating a role for UCAVs in a forward defence of the CVN force it is not a long stretch to envision a UCAV fleet providing continental air defence.
As to the potential for error, the current air interception tactic is enagement at BVR (Beyond Visual Range). This is also at maximum stealth range and this is the reason for VLO aircraft – to get in the first shot and take out the opposition before they are aware they are under threat.
The capabilities of a modern sensor suite are such that it is highly unlikely that an error would take place – we are a long way from the USS Vincennes era.
Once you go the UCAV route your costs drop considerably and the attrition rate moves in your favour.
This is essentially what occured in ground warfare on the Russian steppe in 42-44. The Germans fielded technically sophisticated AFVs (the F-35) and the Russians fielded masses of inexpensive relatively crude armour (a swarm of UCAVs) that overwhelmed the German defense.
Crewed interceptors have a lifespan of less than 10 years.
Saskboy
“Yet that is what we’re being told the F-35 is – right, straight out of the box.”
Mature companies like Microsoft can’t even release an MP3 player without it needing to be connected to the Internet for updates before it plays a single song. I trust Lockheed much less than Microsoft, too.
The rabbit hole sounds like a good place for the F-35 and its backers. Working with modern technology, it’s apparent that investing generations of debt into technology invented in ~2010 is going to look pretty stupid[er] in even half a decade. Like buying a Macbook expected to last 40 years.
sushi
@ Mark
Found this URL on Indian developments. They are deploying home built UCAVs to fill the maritime air patrol role.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-Navy-commissions-its-third-UAV-squadron/articleshow/12626344.cms
The real story on the incompetence of Harper and MacKay is that they talk big on austerity but then turn around and spend billions on military hardware which has no defined mission, is obsolete prior to being fielded and is outpaced by developments elsewhere.
Bizarre country, Canada. Determined to fail.
sushi
Great analysis by Andrew Coyne:
http://www.canada.com/Coyne+scandal+when+governments+respond/6443237/story.html
The prior government fell on the issue of contempt of Parliament due to the CPC failing to disclose the cost of the F-35.
They both clearly knew the true cost and the accepted methods of lifecycle costing in use by both DND and NATO.
The CPC lied to Canadians and then appears to have engaged in electoral misconduct and/or alleged criminal acts to gain a Parliamentary majority.
The GG should dissolve this Parliament and we should go to the polls.
If you believe in Canadian democracy you need to write to your M.P. and/or the GG and demand this government resign.
Purple Library Guy
I don’t think unmanned vehicles are really the wave of the future for much the same reason the F-35 isn’t. They’re fine against people who can’t fight back anyway, and they’re fine until people develop countermeasures, but such countermeasures against remote-controlled vehicles shouldn’t be that hard. Jam them or hack them and they’re either sitting ducks or they’re suddenly your unmanned vehicles. With a piloted plane at least you know it’s gonna stay on your side.
I suppose if you go with autonomous AI . . . if you can make it work well. I have my doubts.
Mark Collins
Check out the P-35 link
“Why the Canadian Government Wants the P-35/What’s Wrong with Canadian Journalism, Part…”
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1021
Mark
Ottawa
CGHZD
http://wwhttp://www.ausairpower.net
/APA-2010-01.htmlw.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html
Have a look at this to find out what a real turkey this plane is.
F-35: Lies and damn liars : Canada's online magazine: Politics, entertainment, technology, media, arts, books: backofthebook.ca
[...] more accurate accounting can be found publicly, than from our Prime Minister. That’s a disgrace, especially around a [...]
youtubingCANUCK
I agree with you’re cost assesments, i had come to the conclusion myself that it was going to be more than 40 billion but there is 2 extra costs yet, that you didn’t factor in. 1 is role-fitting / this doesn’t fall into standard operating costs or maintenace costs. It basiclly changes the aircraft from 1 operational role to another & it’s somwhat inexpensive for the F-18 since this was includeded in it capablity as a multirole fighter so those cost are in the mere millions per deployment but for the F-35 well that brings us to
YET ANOTHER LIE = the f-35 is not an effective multi role fighter & it is not an effective air superiority fighter.
The F-18 was capable of serving this role in the era when it was competitive & legacy fighters were the best, the F-35 will not effectively replace those roles.
So role-fitting it for combat deployments will be very costly in the hundreds of million per deplyments & we can assume 4 deplyments per year – combat or excercise. so you’re looking at 1 billion per year in role-fitting because it would not be effective in certain roles otherwise.
Now role fitting is a new concept that’s based on the
concept of a multi-role except that it involves an aircraft that doesn’t have multi-role capabilities. That describes the F-35 – it’s primary purpose is A STRIKE FIGHTER – it’s basicly a very nasty little bomber.
It’s NOT a dogfighter but if it’s equiped & reol-fitted properly it can be. however, as we are buy them it will
be good only as a strike jet = bomber.
somthing the conservatives don’t want you to here
because of the large amount of left-wing people in
the canadain public who would be pissed off about that
even among conservative voters. It a bombers, designed to penetrate enemy airspace, defeat conventional radars & drop nasty surgical payloads
or nuke bombs & then put up a fight against interceptors on it way home. Inferior 4th generation fighters will lose that fight but 4th gen++ & 5th gen fighters like SU-35, T-50 or J-20 or upgraded su-27 flankers or J-7′s will defeat it or Eurojet or Rafale too.
The 2nd cost, is the new weapons system. I know you mentioned weapons & weapons upgrades but the F-35 in the USA for sure is going to take on a totally new
unconventional anti-balistic, anti-SAM, anti-BVR wepons system called the firestrike. It’s espensive,
it will cost at least a billion plus to fit all 65 jets with it.
It will be necessary, given that modern warare will be
incredibly sophisticated but firestrike will give us an advatange 7 to not have it will mean we’ll be wasting
the billions of dollars for the jet because it will not be a survivable combat system without firstrike in the future.
Firestrike is 100kw laser. it can shoot down, missile othercraft & replace the role of cannons & surgical strike weapons. It may make weapon expenses cheaper over time because it will only require energy
modules & not new units which are costly.
So, as long as we get firestrike, the F-35 cost will be worth it even with the additional cost of role-changing & firstrike but if we do not get firestrike then it will be
costly & USELESS in modern/future warfare & thus a waste of money otherwise.
Tell that to Harper & the Auditor General & the opposition.
If we don’t get firestrike, please don’t buy the F-35 that would be stupid, i’d rather ahve the Su-35 then or the Eurofighter.
youtubingCANUCK
Sorry about my typos & lack of text wrapping.
youtubingCANUCK
Oh, bye the way. Sushi made a good point about UCAV’s but currently UCAV’s do not have the critical thinking skill of an onboard AI system that give them decision making, learning & planning skills so both pilots & ground forces will be able to out smart them.
Not to mention that it is also considered un-ethical
to have drones that will be able to defeat human operated machines built with that capability. It will
not be realized for at least another 20-30 years but,
there are some UCAV’s that can defeat obsolete technology or rookies in combat quite easily: such
as thePhantom Ray which also has stealth & long range. Making it a good covert stealth bomber & surveilance plane but, there are several combat systems sold & deployed by China & Russia that can defeat it easily.Tthus the danger of UCAV’s is placing to much trust in them & then becoming too soft while
the enemy racks up combat experience & then defeats your drones, you’ll be sitting pretty with 0 combat experience for pilots & then get owned by an experienced enemy..
Drones will provide combat experience for an enemy while you sit there pick your nose.
UCAV’s will not replace the role of man or manned vehicles in warfare or anything, they’ll just provide
enhanced tactical advantage & that’s all unless the commander in chief is an idiot..
It’s good to have drones for enhanced tactical advantage but we cannot replace manned combat system with them yet, & probably never can.
youtubingCANUCK
Oh & i forgot to mention a 3rd cost. that is the billions it will cost to buy an actual air superiority fighter to catch up to all other major airforces in the world. since the F-35 will not ever serve that role & thus will not effectively replace the F-18′s various roles for modern warfare.
i like the SU-35…& modern variants of the SU-27 flanker, i hate the super hornet it’s inferior to the Su-27 & Su-35 & so is the F-3., F-35 is inferior to su-35 as well. USA won’t allow the purchase of F-22′s & PAK FA or J-20 won’t be available for 5 years & they probably won’t sell it to us anyway because we’re close to the USA. That leaves SAAB, Eurofighter & Rafale or possibly the Japanese Shin-shin. SAAB is building a stealth fighter interceptor, so is Japan but neither will be available for consideration until 2019. Eurofighter is too expensive & won’t effectively replace the F-18.. A retro-fitted F-18, can rival it & same with the rafale. or
current SAAB Vigen
That leaves us with no options but toBUILD OUR OWN,
or ask the Russians for some Su 35′s or buy the F-35
(I seriously doubt the last 2 option will be best).
What i noticed though is that the Yf-23 program was
defeated by the F-22 & northrop grumman mcdonnel-douglas lost the bid. Thats been sitting pretty ever since with proven prototypes. The Americans say we need to step up & do more for National Defense, they’re tired of having to shelter us while we sit pretty. then they should allow us to buy theY F-23 program out, move it to Canada build it here. It was better than the F-22, the Americans chose the F-22 over it because of cosst which are now dwarfed by F-35 costs.YF-23, We could modify it,winterize it, improve on it & make it better than the F-22 & build 200 of them
for less the cost of 65 F-35′s plus it would be a fully capable AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER,which we definitly need more than the stupid F-35. F-23 would excellent for defnding our Northern territories & excellent for defending our Nation against attackers & still capable of being a fighter bomber like the F-15 & F-18 was, in every way it would be cheaper & superior to the F-35, especial if we can upload it AESA & DAS
We couldn’t go wrong if we bought the Yf-23 & produced it. That tech is not going to be obsolete
for another 30-50 years at least, especially with future retro-fits.. & we could buy it up & put it into the manufacturing within a year after we get the prototypes,
engineering consultants & blueprints.
Pakistan did somthing like this with a Chinese development, they purchased the rights to build
a cheaper variant of the J-7 called the JF-17 Thunder to replace their old French mirageF1′s & modernize; & if pakistan can do it WE CAN.. If sweeden can build their own, we could buy a pre-existing develpment & build it ourselves thus pumping money into our economy too, instead of some one elses econmy getting served with billions of our tax payers money.
The Sixth Estate » Expensive Government Study Confirms Sixth Estate’s F-35 Cost Estimate
[...] read it here first, on Sixth Estate: the F-35 jet fighter will cost $48.7 billion. Well, almost, anyways. The government spent a great deal more than Sixth Estate earns from this [...]
Irish Linn
After examine a number of of the weblog posts in your website now, and I actually like your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site listing and shall be checking back soon. Pls take a look at my site as nicely and let me know what you think.