Well, that's the thing. Rafale's high cost was with all of those stuff included. It's about 69 million without those stuff. I'm just saying that if you are comparing prices, you have to be uniform on the parameters that you are comparing them under. Anyhow, we will see with an export on what the total cost of a F-22 with all the extra stuff added is.Sea Dog said:
USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies" very soon
- Thread starter Sea Dog
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #42
I think you're low-balling the RAFALE.tphuang said:
At PARIS 2005, French armaments director Francois Laureau noted that the cost of acquiring all 294 Rafales had now risen to e26.4 billion ($32.2 billion at the June 2005 exchange rate). Do the math and that comes to almost $110 million per a/c. And that price will keep climbing as they get they get the F3 version finallized
:dbanana
Canada F-18 vs JSF
IMHO: Still 50%/50% in the end it will be down to the politicians, they may be willing to pay more just to be seen as having the latest "toys".
I agree that the F-22 is just too expensive for Canada. There are two options JSF & Super Hornet. JSF has the better performance. The Super Hornet is cheaper and has two engines, important for such a large country. Also having operated F-18s much of the infrastructure is already in place.410Cougar said:
IMHO: Still 50%/50% in the end it will be down to the politicians, they may be willing to pay more just to be seen as having the latest "toys".
Its great to have a surplus, it really is. But who needs it more...the military (which I think do), health care, education, parents with kids, etc....the list goes on and on in this country but hopefully under a new gov't we'll be able to better equip our defensive capabilities than before.Sea Dog said:
Attila
Couldn't have said it any better than that chrisrobsoar. I think that we can still be seen as having the latest "toys" if we get the Super Hornet since it is still a relatively new platform at a reasonable cost.chrisrobsoar said:
After speaking with some of our pilots they definitely like the idea of a plane with 2 engines to patrol the vast territory we occupy. As well, since the infrastructure is already in place, upgrading it to a SH capability wouldn't be that hard at all. Witness the minor upgrade we'll do if we end up buying the Hercs.
All that being said, I think we'll still be looking at it at least another 10 years from now since that is when we'll be looking at retiring our current birds based on the amount of airtime and possible upgrades we could give them.
Attila
I'd really laugh out loud and cheer the day that Canada can afford something like F-22. But yeah, for the short term being, the super bug is definitely Canada's best option due to familiarity and infrastructure. It remains to be seen when and if we will be able to afford JSF. Of course, if we have a liberal government in power, we'd probably never get JSFs.chrisrobsoar said:
As much as I dislike the Liberals, they are the ones who selected our current fleet of Hornets.tphuang said:
Since Canada has a definite role to play in the aviation world and with its commitments to NATO, NORAD and due to our vast territory I don't think we could ever convince people we could do it with a 40 year old plane.
We owe it to ourselves to rebuild what was essentially decimated over the last 15 years or so. Hopefully we'll start off with the airforce and then also support our troops equally through it all. The new defense minister is former military (the way it should be) so we can only hope...here's a quick article on what he's been saying.
Canada's military priorities: more troops, closer relations with U.S.
Last Updated Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:37:38 EST
CBC News
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says his vision for the Canadian Armed Forces is for more troops in the ranks and closer ties with the United States.
The Conservatives made a long list of promises to the military during the election campaign. But O'Connor says the new government's defence policy can be summed up in a few words.
"It's about having a three-ocean navy, a robust army and a revitalized air force," he said in Ottawa on Thursday. "Increasing the strength of the Canadian Forces to at least 75,000 regular force personnel is a clear priority. We will also intend to increase the reserve force by 10,000."
Under this plan Canada will eventually have more than 100,000 full-time and part-time soldiers.
The Conservatives have also promised to build new icebreakers, buy the air force new planes and boost the military's presence across the country.
They've pledged $5.3 billion in new defence spending over five years. But some believe that figure is too low.
"It's going to require a much, much bigger budget than the Conservatives have let on," said David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies in Toronto.
"The cumulative price of all these promises, both the extra people, the northern training areas, the icebreakers, the territorial defence units, plus strategic lift, that's going to go far beyond the $5.3 billion that the government has promised."
Liberal Leader Bill Graham was defence minister in the previous government. He agrees with Rudd and said Canadians may not realize just how much it will cost to fulfill the Conservatives promises.
"The cost factor will be very substantial. I mean far in excess of anything they talked about."
But new troops and equipment aren't the only priorities for the new Conservative government.
O'Connor said another goal will be strengthening military ties with the United States.
He said Canada will sign a new North American Aerospace Defence Command agreement with Washington within months.
The new deal would expand Norad's role so that Canada and the U.S. share responsibilities for patrolling the waters off North America.
As for the the contentious issue of missile defence, O'Connor said the government is open to restarting talks with the U.S. But he said Washington would have to initiate those discussions.
O'Connor said before Canada signs on to any deal, the government will put it to a vote in the House of Commons.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/23/defence060223.html
I think JSF is the export fighter, not the F-22 in the next 10 years at least. This intention of selling F-22s to allies may come from the US congress and the manufacturers in an attempt to lower the cost of each copy and buy more for the USAF, and possibly get more budget to develop future F-22 variants (including the FB-22) or one for the navy, who knows. But I think USAF wouldn't definitely like Saudi Arabia or Israel to have F-22s, the possibilities of that technology falling into the hands of non-simpathizing nations is too big. And by selling an F-22 to any nation, even if it's a trusted ally USAF can kiss absolute air dominance good bye, an asset any AF wouldn't want to loose. When other countries develop more advanced technologies and F-22 isn't so cutting edge in comparison, then exporting F-22s will become a reality like it happened with F-15s, to strengthen the capabilities of your allies and yours, today it just means making the guys in your block have a bike as cool as yours. 
As for RCAF needs, I definitely agree that the Super Bug is the natural option, with some F-35s later for a nice boost in capabilities. True, Canada needs a good performance interceptor, but the logic choice to me is an upgraded F-15 that will come later for sure. If Canada would buy a modernized F-15 in the future I don't know, but the kind of money needed for F-22s and even F-35s is too much and that doesn't fit in Canada's policy to spend money wisely, in my opinion.
As for RCAF needs, I definitely agree that the Super Bug is the natural option, with some F-35s later for a nice boost in capabilities. True, Canada needs a good performance interceptor, but the logic choice to me is an upgraded F-15 that will come later for sure. If Canada would buy a modernized F-15 in the future I don't know, but the kind of money needed for F-22s and even F-35s is too much and that doesn't fit in Canada's policy to spend money wisely, in my opinion.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #51
The F-15 entered USAF service in 1974.Gaenth said:
-We sold F-15's to Israel (1975) with first delivery in 1976.
-We sold F-15's to Saudi Arabia (1980) with first delivery in 1981.
-We sold F-15's to Japan (1977) with first delivery in 1981.
So within less than 2 years after the F-15 entered in USAF service, it was already operational with the IDF, and within 5 more years with two other nations. BTW, it took over 30 years for something to go up in the air that could actually challange the F-15 (the EF2000).
So we "did not kiss any air dominance good-bye" then, and selling the F22 today to trusted allies will not endanger our security one bit (IMHO, Saudi's are not going to get them).
You've made a very good point there Sea Dog. I wasn't aware F-15s were sold to other nations so quickly after enetring service in the USAF. I wonder how advanced is F/A-22 today compared to F-15 back in the day it was introduced. I think Raptors are more "sensitive technology" not to mention their price which itself makes it prohibitive to almost every AF but USAF. I mean, the US and the UK haven't agreed yet about technology transfer issues on JSF, some even saying that's endangering the future of that programme. As for USAF's absolute air dominance (air to air), I believe that condition was stablished long before the Raptor was even sketched and really, no other nation has really tried to challenge that (thank Lord), when Raptors become available in strength that prospect will be even more unlikely. True, exports of F-15s didn't endangered the US, very much the opposite way, it gave Japan, Israel, KSA and now Korea a good deterrance weapon in areas potentially dangerous thus giving the US some projection, but all of those nations except maybe Saudi Arabia benefited from technology transfer and at least Israel has sold weapons to nations that aren't necessarily trusted allies. I was also thinking of a non USAF F-22 being forced to land somewhere it wasn't supposed to. Maybe a little paranoic I know :tomato
Anyway, I must agree with you Sea Dog, thanks for the reply.
Anyway, I must agree with you Sea Dog, thanks for the reply.
One must also keep in mind, that the US is not likely to export top-of-the-line Raptors to any nation- including "trusted" allies.
I suspect many of it's more sensitive inovations like low-observability, and it's advanced avionics suite would not be as effective on export variants as they are on front line USAF Raptors.
Thats not really such a bad deal for nations like the UK, and Japan, because they are still getting an excellent, and very effective 5th-gen fighter that is still decades ahead of anything they are capable of building on their own. And both of those nations could refit their export Raptors with avionics sets that rival those in USAF F/A-22's.
While their Raptors might have the radar cross-section of a bird, as opposed to the USAF's nearly invisible models- that would still provide them with an amazing advantage over anything they are likely to face in aerial combat. Besides, any future conflict involving RAF, or JASDF Raptors would most likely heve the total backing of fully-capable USAF Raptors anyway.
I suspect many of it's more sensitive inovations like low-observability, and it's advanced avionics suite would not be as effective on export variants as they are on front line USAF Raptors.
Thats not really such a bad deal for nations like the UK, and Japan, because they are still getting an excellent, and very effective 5th-gen fighter that is still decades ahead of anything they are capable of building on their own. And both of those nations could refit their export Raptors with avionics sets that rival those in USAF F/A-22's.
While their Raptors might have the radar cross-section of a bird, as opposed to the USAF's nearly invisible models- that would still provide them with an amazing advantage over anything they are likely to face in aerial combat. Besides, any future conflict involving RAF, or JASDF Raptors would most likely heve the total backing of fully-capable USAF Raptors anyway.
If the USA will not give the UK the technology to support the JSF there is no chance that they will give us the technology to support the F22.
That alone would kill the deal let alone the cost. Also the UK do not need the F22. The F22 is rightly regarded as being the best plane in the world and the Typhoon the second best. Assuming we don't get into a shooting war with the USA we will still have better planes that anyone we are likely to go up against.
That alone would kill the deal let alone the cost. Also the UK do not need the F22. The F22 is rightly regarded as being the best plane in the world and the Typhoon the second best. Assuming we don't get into a shooting war with the USA we will still have better planes that anyone we are likely to go up against.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #55
Glider said:
That's just contractor posturing.
Don't give too much credence to it, it's just part of the back-n-forth negotiations for production contracts & responsibilities. UK is blowing a lot of hot air, and the US is making a lot of fear-mongering statements that will not be backed up. It's like haggling in the local market.
I understand what your saying and you may well be right, but the second part still holds.
If we have the second best plane in the world, then as long as we don't start a shooting was with the USA we are still better than the rest. The UK will not buy the F22, we cannot afford it and we don't need it.
If we have the second best plane in the world, then as long as we don't start a shooting was with the USA we are still better than the rest. The UK will not buy the F22, we cannot afford it and we don't need it.
I hope your right Sea Dog, we have put a lot of time, money and effort into JSF/JCA and certainly from the perspective of the company I work for, the programme is critical.
Yet, rumour here has it that part of the UK-French Carrier Production Agreement may have involved a Rafale-M purchase by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (who have already evaluated the aircraft) and that the current cries of foul play by the UK Government and MoD in concerns to JSF, may actually have been manipulated from the start to justify what would be a very controversial purchase.
I seriously hope this is not the case and that the problems of JSF are resolved.
I'd wish my next comment wouldn't sound so rushed given the fact that JSF is still under development but in my opinion the Rafale will never be anywhere near to F-35 in capability (specially F-35B), yet closer in price, which for me is one of the reasons the Rafale has been unable to sell outside, and I think UK know they'd be much better off with a navalized Typhoon, ultimately better for their industry. This Rafale rumour is just a way to put pressure on the US on technology transfer issues of the JSF programme.
For the RN to buy a aircraft with no UK industrial involvement, let alone a French one, seems a bit like calling the day, night in other words inconceivable.Izzy1 said:
If, and it is a big IF, JSF was not bought in the UK I would see the Typhoon naval variant, or the F/A-18E/F/G as more likely.
A lot of the rumours can be traced back to a couple of individuals.Izzy1 said:
Dr Richard North is a member of the Bruges Group and has written books with Christopher Booker (he has a weekly column in the Telegraph and also writes for the Mail on Sunday).
The Bruges Group ia a neoliberal think tank which researches and publishes against European federation and against British participation in a single European state.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/
It continues to publish and is active on the world wide web. Some of its leading lights are active in the blogosphere (e.g. Dr Helen Szamuely and Dr Richard North at the EU Referendum blog).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges_Group
Dr Richard North also is associated with the following organisations.
Campaign to Reject the European Constitution
http://www.european-referendum.org.uk/purchase-book.html
THE COLONIAL EMPLOYMENT BUREAU of BRUSSELS:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/rebut5.html
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/
The Wrong Side of the Hill - Dr R North agues for closer links with US and to abandon links with EU.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/UK-EU-US_Wrong_side_of_the_hill_def_4.pdf
Dr Richard North is anti-EU and particularly against UK involvement with France in defence.
Please be aware of his position and anticipate that information from this source will have significant “spin”.
IMHO: The objective of Dr Richard North and Christopher Booker in referring to hidden deals on carriers and Rafale (in recent press reports) is to stir-up anti-French feeling and to attack the current UK government.
I also think that JSF with ToT is the best option for the UK and also for other potential JSF customers.
Chris