[ICTHUS]

Hey folks,

So I know there are a few military types here. I have a question about F-18's, that has to do with a claim that the Canadian government is making that the F-18 is nearing the end of its operational life expectancy and that their airframes are wearing out, or something to that effect, and that they cost more to maintain than buying a brand new aircraft like the JSF (F-35).

The claim is that our current defence needs are not, or soon will not, be served by our existing Air Force equipment (our complement of CF-18's), both due to the reason I mentioned above and the fact that other militaries in the world are using more advanced aircraft than the F-18 (let's ignore the fact that the last 'threat' Canada faced was a Russian TU-95 Bear flying within a few hundred kilometres of Canadian airspace, never actually entering, and that the TU-95 is a fifty year old aircraft that an F-18 is more than capable of dealing with), and that consequently we must budget for the JSF, and I would like some help evaluating that claim critically.

[slap_j]

The United States is phasing out the F-18 in favor of the F-35 as well. Though we're buying ~2,500 instead of 65. Anyway, what is the objection? That it will cost too much or that the jets aren't needed at all? Supposedly this is going be good for Canada's aerospace industry in terms of job creation, right? I don't know enough to say whether this is true. Nor do I know enough about the Hornets Canada is flying to say whether their claims about that are accurate. The F-18 has been in service since 1983. I don't know how long airframes last but I've read the US Navy keeps them in service for 20 years or so.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Anyway, what is the objection? That it will cost too much or that the jets aren't needed at all? Supposedly this is going be good for Canada's aerospace industry in terms of job creation, right?

That would make it bad for everyone *except* the areospace industry as the non-ASI taxes will pay for the ASI jobs.

Military spending = government spending.

In answer to the OP. I don't know what the ongoig maintainence costs of the F-18 would be. Since the same company that sells the F-35 decides what it wants to charge for F-18 maintainence; I'd suspect that all costs will be "whatever makes them the most money". Similarly: the government will decide whatever they are told to decide by those who fund their elections and summer homes.

[adamwagg]

We (Australia) are apparently replacing our F-18's and F-111's with JSF's as well.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That would make it bad for everyone *except* the areospace industry as the non-ASI taxes will pay for the ASI jobs.

Why would that be particularly bad? All other military spending is paid for with taxes. Of course there should always be a healthy suspicion of the military-industrial complex. We're all well aware that it doesn't exist for altruistic purposes.

Since the same company that sells the F-35 decides what it wants to charge for F-18 maintainence

Isn't it Lockheed Martin that sells the F-35? Why would they be doing maintenance on F-18s? There's probably something I'm missing here. Is there some other broker at work in this deal?

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Hey folks,

So I know there are a few military types here. I have a question about F-18's, that has to do with a claim that the Canadian government is making that the F-18 is nearing the end of its operational life expectancy and that their airframes are wearing out, or something to that effect, and that they cost more to maintain than buying a brand new aircraft like the JSF (F-35).

The claim is that our current defence needs are not, or soon will not, be served by our existing Air Force equipment (our complement of CF-18's), both due to the reason I mentioned above and the fact that other militaries in the world are using more advanced aircraft than the F-18 (let's ignore the fact that the last 'threat' Canada faced was a Russian TU-95 Bear flying within a few hundred kilometres of Canadian airspace, never actually entering, and that the TU-95 is a fifty year old aircraft that an F-18 is more than capable of dealing with), and that consequently we must budget for the JSF, and I would like some help evaluating that claim critically.

Originally Posted by slap_j

The United States is phasing out the F-18 in favor of the F-35 as well. Though we're buying ~2,500 instead of 65. Anyway, what is the objection? That it will cost too much or that the jets aren't needed at all? Supposedly this is going be good for Canada's aerospace industry in terms of job creation, right? I don't know enough to say whether this is true. Nor do I know enough about the Hornets Canada is flying to say whether their claims about that are accurate. The F-18 has been in service since 1983. I don't know how long airframes last but I've read the US Navy keeps them in service for 20 years or so.

Like Slap_j pointed out, the F-18 has been in service since 1983. That's not long, in airplane years..... Northwest and Delta airlines are still flying equipment from the 60's and 70's, and put huge amounts of hours on them. Last I heard the Germans were still operating F-4's, or had just barely phased them out.

The US did this same sort of thing a while back. We had our whole fleet of F-15's grounded due to stress fractures in wing spars. Our options were to either spend somewhere in the order of 15 million per plane to replace basically the entire wing structure, or replace the aircraft with F-22's, at a cost of 200 million each. We opted for the latter. Does the Canadian Air Force need new airplanes? Not likely. Sure, they're older ones are getting worn, but as long as you can source parts for them, it will always be cheaper than F-35's.

Really, I don't think the Canadians need to be worried about having the newest and best technology. You aren't likely to face any threats any time soon.

Canada's biggest mistake was buying a fleet of F-18's to begin with. Terrible, terrible choice.....

I don't know the per unit cost of an F-35 off the top of my head, but I'd guess that a Super Hornet would be way cheaper, and is still a huge upgrade from the old Legacy Hornets.

Next gen fighter aircraft are just stupid expensive.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Why would that be particularly bad? All other military spending is paid for with taxes. Of course there should always be a healthy suspicion of the military-industrial complex. We're all well aware that it doesn't exist for altruistic purposes.

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that taxing the populus to spend on things is something which is "good" or "bad".

Personally: I prefer unneccessairy spending on infrastructure and social support rather than fighter-jets.

Isn't it Lockheed Martin that sells the F-35? Why would they be doing maintenance on F-18s? There's probably something I'm missing here. Is there some other broker at work in this deal?

Fair enough. Boeing isn't Lockheed Martin... though I suspect you'll find many of the same people involved regardless.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

The US did this same sort of thing a while back. We had our whole fleet of F-15's grounded due to stress fractures in wing spars. Our options were to either spend somewhere in the order of 15 million per plane to replace basically the entire wing structure, or replace the aircraft with F-22's, at a cost of 200 million each. We opted for the latter.

No we didn't. We returned the F15's to service (McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't know the per unit cost of an F-35 off the top of my head, but I'd guess that a Super Hornet would be way cheaper, and is still a huge upgrade from the old Legacy Hornets.

The USAF's budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost that ranges between US$89 million and US$200 million over the planned production of F-35's, depending on the variant. Lockheed Martin expects to reduce government cost estimates by 20%

Next gen fighter aircraft are just stupid expensive.

Which is odd since part of the point of the F-35 was cost reduction.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No we didn't. We returned the F15's to service (McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Ah, I see. The last I had heard of the situation was that an order was placed for a bunch of F-22's. Thanks for the updated info.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The USAF's budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost that ranges between US$89 million and US$200 million over the planned production of F-35's, depending on the variant. Lockheed Martin expects to reduce government cost estimates by 20%

I'm curious about this. A 20% reduction from what? From the current operational budget?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which is odd since part of the point of the F-35 was cost reduction.

Indeed. I'm still wondering though... reduction from what? And first I'd need convincing proof that we actually need new airplanes.....

[farouk]

TPM:

Maybe if they rebuild the Avro Arrow...?

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by farouk

TPM:

Maybe if they rebuild the Avro Arrow...?

Um...... what? How would that help?

[farouk]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

Um...... what? How would that help?

TPM:

I guess it wouldn't....

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

AI'm curious about this. A 20% reduction from what? From the current operational budget?

From projections

Indeed. I'm still wondering though... reduction from what? And first I'd need convincing proof that we actually need new airplanes.....

Operational costs of other options.

You do need to replace aircraft from time to time... and the cost of maintining an existing aircraft tends to rise over time (like a car).

I suppose we could still be attempting to upkeep wooden bi-planes.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

From projections

Operational costs of other options.

Ah. It would be interesting to take a look at these projections.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You do need to replace aircraft from time to time... and the cost of maintining an existing aircraft tends to rise over time (like a car).

I suppose we could still be attempting to upkeep wooden bi-planes.

Right. I'm well aware of the service life of an aircraft.... I am currently employed in the restoration/maintenance/operation of aircraft that span over 80 years of history. Wood and fabric is really quite nice to work with, and not entirely maintenance intensive.

Wood-and-fabric aircraft wouldn't serve the role that we need filled, though. An F-15 does. We could buy a new F-15 for probably 40 million. Not 200 million. That is my point. If new aircraft are indeed needed, we need to take a look at what is actually necessary, versus what is available.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

Right. I'm well aware of the service life of an aircraft.... I am currently employed in the restoration/maintenance/operation of aircraft that span over 80 years of history. Wood and fabric is really quite nice to work with, and not entirely maintenance intensive.

Wood isn't prone to breaking from repeated sub-criticl stress like aluminum is. Fabric does certainly wear (and mold), bit is easliy replaced.

Control cabling and engines would seem to be the biggest issue in maintaining a wood-and-cloth aircraft (and preventing wood rot)... but it's not really my field.

Wood-and-fabric aircraft wouldn't serve the role that we need filled, though. An F-15 does. We could buy a new F-15 for probably 40 million. Not 200 million. That is my point. If new aircraft are indeed needed, we need to take a look at what is actually necessary, versus what is available.

What, precisely, is the need?

Why use F-15s? Could we do it with F-4s? What about P-38s?

Though I can think of several mission functions F-15s are no good for (like carrier landings).