Skip to main content

F35 to buy or not to buy

Canada is in the process of replacing its aging CF18 (already 30 years old) fighter aircraft.  Canada is a both a small and a large country, its geography is large, but its 36 million population is small.  The decision to replace the aging CF18 has been long and arduous, and the Department of Defense has finally settled on the F35 strike aircraft, currently being tested and readied for deployment (2016) in the US Air Force.

So far the DoD has indicated that the aircraft should cost about $75 million a piece and we are looking to buy 65 – for a total of nearly $5 billion.  On top of that the DoD has budgeted for the aircraft consumable and training facilities – basically another $4 billion. For a grand total of $9 billion. 

Those who want to buy the aircraft maintain that it was specifically created as a replacement for the F18 aircraft (the American version of the CF18), and therefore an excellent and affordable aircraft for the Canadian armed forces.  It also a dual mission aircraft, it is both a fighter and a bomber.  As those involved indicated, when the CF18 was bought it was purchased in the cold war environment where our enemies would be flying over the Pole!  The aircraft will be used by the US army, which means that in war theater Canadians (who often work in concert with the Americans) will have access to spare parts….

Those who are against the purchase have three principal issues:  First, the aircraft is not yet “operating”, it has been flying for a year but is still in the test phase.  So the final cost of the aircraft is unknown.  However, the cost per aircraft will not be $75 million, but nearly twice that $145 million per aircraft.  Which means that the total program cost is not $9 billion but nearer to $16 billion.

Second, although it is a replacement aircraft for the F18, it has two major flaws – it’s a compromise aircraft, as a fighter and a bomber it is great at neither.  Third, two key features are missing, long range and super cruse.  Canada is a big country and military aircrafts are the F1 of the air, they consume lots of gas, and have limited range.  Moreover, if the aircraft doesn’t have super cruise it must use its afterburners – great speed, but range drops off dramatically.

The first and second arguments are the poorest, firstly, the numbers given by the DoD are preliminary, Canada will not embark on this adventure until it knows the final number.  In fact, the aircraft may indeed cost $16 billion but that’s not a reason for not buying them.  One aspect that is somewhat strange in the cost calculation: Wikipedia shows the estimated flyaway cost of the aircraft (in all its versions) at $140-$150 million per aircraft (that the DoD talks about $75 million per aircraft seems to be an exercise in deception on their part).  Those who say that we should not buy fighter jets misunderstand the discussion.  If Canada is to have borders (especially in the North) it must enforce its sovereign rights.  Fighter aircrafts are a wonderful force projection tool.  The second argument that the aircraft is bad at its two missions is valid but irrelevant; Canada cannot afford to have both a fighter and a bomber.  It needs a fighter for force projection, and it needs a bomber for flight interdiction missions (e.g. Libya).  Canada needs a multi-mission aircraft. 

The one aspect that is troubling is the last one, specifically; Canada’s primary use for the aircraft is force projection.  Most of this will take place over the high artic – very far from bases, so the aircraft need long range operation capability (unless the DoD is also planning to buy a bunch of refueling aircraft).  Finally, the F35 is a single engine aircraft.  That’s a bit of a problem when flying in the artic. 

In terms of competitors to the F35 there is the F22 and the European Typhoon.  The F22 cannot be exported.  The Eurofighter Typhoon is also a twin engine super cruse high range aircraft, but by 2020 (when we are looking to replace the CF18) it will be an old program.  There are good arguments why the Typhoon is not appropriate, because by the time Canada is ready to replace the CF18 (around 2020) the aircraft will already be “old” at 17, and nearing the end of its production schedule.  Maybe the DoD bought the only “available” modern Fighter aircraft available!

Anyway these are the facts 

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Spray painting Taylor Swift G650 aircraft (updated)

 First, a bit of paint will not harm anyone.  These climate activities are going to learn two things in the next few days:  (1) Trespassing at an airport is a felony almost anywhere in the world.  That means criminal prosecution.   (2) removing paint from an aircraft is expensive.   So these climate activists are about to find out the reach of the British criminal system and it will not be pleasant, the UK has very strict laws about that, I would be surprised if cleaning the aircraft of all the paint will cost less than $100,000.     I am sure that when they planned (premeditation) this little show they had a very valid logic to doing this.  Tonight, they are probably realizing the depth of their troubles.   I understand that in the UK it's a minimum one-year jail sentence.    Also, good luck travelling with a criminal trespass charge against you.  I am relatively certain that the airline industry will ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Janet Yellen from China supporter to Hawk...

There is rarely serious news in the world these days, it seems that most newspapers are filled with headlines and little else, and then Ms Yellen went to China.  Secretary Yellen has long been known in the Biden administration as the voice of moderation when dealing with China, yet as her trip which concluded yesterday a hawk was born:  She warned the Chinese against dumping goods in the United States.    fighting words! The American administration is very concerned about the lack of Chinese domestic consumption.   Even before the COVID-19 epidemic, there were already the beginning signs of a slowdown, automobile sales were off.   China is facing domestic deflation (a clear sign of collapsing demand) China imports few consumer goods, they import raw materials and intermediary goods.   It seems that the American administration is concerned that the Chinese administration will dump consumer goods abroad to keep its manufacturing machinery ...
Post a Comment
Read more