$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[Moonbox]

reading comprehension challenged are you?... what part of "that number was expected to double by 2009...." ...the number of engineering graduates is now at 450,000-500,000...that six times the number the US produces...and 35% of India is illiterate!....

The concept of quality vs quantity seems to be escaping you. The fact that a DEVELOPING nation with over a billion people is pumping out lots of engineers is irrelevant to the field of aerospace technology. It takes the brightest and best of the best to be on the cutting edge of warplane technology, and thus far India has not shown itself to be even in the same DECADE as the USA in that respect.

it's not Einstein the US Government awards research and development contracts, the manufacturers are PAID to do research by the US government...production/unit price costs do not reflect development costs...

Okay well answer me this then: Canada is paying about $138M/unit for a fighter that the company is going to be producing for about $89M/unit (based on production of about 1700 units) or according to Lockheed perhaps even 20% less than that.

We're not getting the R&D for free.

[Bonam]

It doesnt matter where innovation comes from.

Of course it matters. The place where innovation originates is the place where you are gonna get the most innovative products soonest. Only after the technology has been copied elsewhere can you get it from somewhere else. The F-35 has advantages that no Russian aircraft will have for many years after the F-35 is already in production.

The US was responsible for most of the innovation in integrated circuitry, computers, etc as well, but the fact is youre going to get a much better deal buying these products from other markets.

Really now? Want the latest generation of computer processor? Guess what, it's an Intel, designed in America (or Intel's facility in Israel). Want the latest graphics card? Whether it's AMD or nvidia, another American product. Want the latest supercomputer? Guess what, it's an IBM or a Cray, again, American.

If you're ok with replicas with reduced performance, however, then you can get these parts from other sources. Do we want our fighters to be the real thing, or are we gonna stock up on fake rolex watches?

Innovation matters.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

As usual from you a post that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

That aside... I want one of those planes. 118k seems like a good deal!

You did say best bang for the buck...and at the risk of offending my hosts, Canadians are known to be penny pinchers.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As for the aerospace industry I already posted a paper that outlines the differences between the US and Russia and they are nowhere near as far apart as most people on here think.

Does your "paper" include differences for combat flight hours for all tactical platforms?

[dre]

Of course it matters. The place where innovation originates is the place where you are gonna get the most innovative products soonest. Only after the technology has been copied elsewhere can you get it from somewhere else. The F-35 has advantages that no Russian aircraft will have for many years after the F-35 is already in production.

Really now? Want the latest generation of computer processor? Guess what, it's an Intel, designed in America (or Intel's facility in Israel). Want the latest graphics card? Whether it's AMD or nvidia, another American product. Want the latest supercomputer? Guess what, it's an IBM or a Cray, again, American.

Innovation matters.

Thats good stuff if youre want to do a tech demo, but in the real world you design purchases against a defined set of business requirements, and try to get the best deal possible. And buying American made stuff is increasing the way to get the worst deal.

Youre assuming Canada needs the most expensive, state of the art, high tech equipment in order to fullfill its defense needs. Thats never been the case.

If you're ok with replicas with reduced performance, however, then you can get these parts from other sources. Do we want our fighters to be the real thing, or are we gonna stock up on fake rolex watches?

Im ok with purchasing products that satisfy my business requirements for the best deal given the life cycle of the hardware. Anything beyond that is a waste of money.

Edited June 25, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Youre assuming Canada needs the most expensive, state of the art, high tech equipment in order to fullfill its defense needs. Thats never been the case.

This won't be the most state of the art stuff over its lifetime. We are buying these fighters now, and will still be flying them in 40-50 years, just as we did with our Hornets. Do we really want the fighter we purchase to be the mainstay of our airforce for the next half century to already be obsolete before it even rolls off the assembly line?

[dre]

This won't be the most state of the art stuff over its lifetime. We are buying these fighters now, and will still be flying them in 40-50 years, just as we did with our Hornets. Do we really want the fighter we purchase to be the mainstay of our airforce for the next half century to already be obsolete before it even rolls off the assembly line?

I want the best bang for the buck for products that satisfy our needs. Maybe the F35 is it. But we dont now that because from what I can tell our government didnt even do basic undergrad level business analysis on this purchase. If they did then I havent seen it.

I did some quick reading about what the Canadian Airforce actually does with its fighters and the vast majority of the missions they fly dont require planes like this. It flew 600 missions over Canada last year that were basically just patrols... one of their primary missions nowdays is maintaining a state of readiness to take out rogue civilian airliners.

[ZenOps]

I'm not too sure who majorially owns Lockheed Martin anymore.

There is a lot of India influence from Lockheed nowadays yes. I believe one of their Billionaires has been buying it up slowly (People in the US tended to stick their money to the "safe" banks, and lost bigtime in the sub-prime mess)

British Petroleum is still mostly British pension funds. Bell Canada could almost be considered Canadian (if they actually let the Ontario Teachers Pensioners buy it, which they didn't.)

The actual physical location of the corporation is almost moot nowadays. Hudsons Bay is owned majorially by a US investor now.

Tata buying out Jaguar and Land Rover was impressive as hell. They could get away with it because of their associated "old" laws as under the British Empire as IND:EMP made it a lot easier. China could never get away with buying Lockheed, it would simply be blocked.

Lockheed martin website slogan "We never forget who we are working for." Thats the man with the most money right, haha!

Edited June 25, 2010 by ZenOps

[bloodyminded]

I hope the irony of a indian firm paying indian engineers less for engineering work being done in the US and not in india is not lost on anyone...

If you went to work at a WalMart production factory in Indonesia, do you suppose they'd pay you nine dollars an hour, because you're a North American?

[dre]

If you went to work at a WalMart production factory in Indonesia, do you suppose they'd pay you nine dollars an hour, because you're a North American?

Generally what happens is producers make deals with government officials that ammount to the tradeoff: "We'll build a factory here if you let us treat your workers super shitty". When all is said and done the workers are lucky to get 30 cents US. Never mind 9 dollars.

[Moonbox]

I want the best bang for the buck for products that satisfy our needs. Maybe the F35 is it. But we dont now that because from what I can tell our government didnt even do basic undergrad level business analysis on this purchase. If they did then I havent seen it.

HAHAHAHAHA!

I don't doubt you haven't seen the Ministry of Defence's analysis of their fighter requirements. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that they probably don't disclose all of the plane's specs to armchair generals on internet forums. Your 'knowledge' of the project appears to be nil. Let's go with what we DO know though. We DO know that the USAF considers the F-35 4x more effective than current 4th generation fighters. There isn't another plane out there that boasts that sort of capability that would be available to the Canadian market.

I did some quick reading about what the Canadian Airforce actually does with its fighters and the vast majority of the missions they fly dont require planes like this. It flew 600 missions over Canada last year that were basically just patrols... one of their primary missions nowdays is maintaining a state of readiness to take out rogue civilian airliners.

You could say the same about virtually any piece of military equipment. The equipment acts as a deterrent and it's better to have it and give yourself some measure of safety and self-reliance than need it and not have it. How many dead soldiers could have been saved in Afghanistan if we'd had heavy-lift helicopters and properly equipped tanks? The US discovered in Vietnam what the cost was of not having the right equipment for the job.

[bloodyminded]

Generally what happens is producers make deals with government officials that ammount to the tradeoff: "We'll build a factory here if you let us treat your workers super shitty". When all is said and done the workers are lucky to get 30 cents US. Never mind 9 dollars.

Yes, as far as I know, many are still in "tax-free zones" as well.

And yes, I was joking about the $9: I didn't mean it would be somewhat less...I meant it was completely off into another universe.

[dre]

I don't doubt you haven't seen the Ministry of Defence's analysis of their fighter requirements. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that they probably don't disclose all of the plane's specs to armchair generals on internet forums. Your 'knowledge' of the project appears to be nil. Let's go with what we DO know though. We DO know that the USAF considers the F-35 4x more effective than current 4th generation fighters. There isn't another plane out there that boasts that sort of capability that would be available to the Canadian market.

Yup my knowledge is nil, and so is yours. The difference is youre willing to casually approve the spending of 10 billion dollars based on that informational void and Im more hesitant.

Youre willing to just have "faith" that they did their homework on this purchase and that this purchase really does represent the best deal available to fullfill our rather basic defense needs. I dont convey that kind of trust to the military or the military industrial complex, or the government. Theres a rich history of tax payers getting raped on deals like this so excuse me for not having blind faith. Especially when dealing with the US where taxpayers routinely pay 1000 dollars for things like toilet seats once the military rip-off machine gets involved.

Edited June 25, 2010 by dre

[ZenOps]

Sure the USAF is going to say the new fighter is 4x more effective than the old one.

The people outside the US are still testing them for themselves. Its just a matter of time to determine if its a flop or not.

Intel said its Itanium chip, was vastly superior to its previous generation. About 1 year later its was discontinued because the people who actually use them - found out they weren't up to par (they were actually pure crap)

Canada has been duped many many times with military equipment. France sold us crap, Brits sold us crap, and the US has also occasionally sold us crap. I think the reason Canada doesn't have a military - is because we always get the crap helicopters and leaky submarines dumped on us. "Oh, just sell it to Canada - they won't need it anyways."

If the US were to manufacture 3,000 F-35's and sell 60 to Canada, what is stopping you from giving us all the ones that had minor problems and glitches that could never be fixed? Why do you in the US think Canada is more concerned about the "warranty", the service agreement - than the actual plane itself. Its the sell the Canadians the "Crap" factor, just like a used car salesman.

Small rant.

Edited June 25, 2010 by ZenOps

[segnosaur]

I did some quick reading about what the Canadian Airforce actually does with its fighters and the vast majority of the missions they fly dont require planes like this. It flew 600 missions over Canada last year that were basically just patrols... one of their primary missions nowdays is maintaining a state of readiness to take out rogue civilian airliners.

I think the most important part of that posting was the phrase "vast majority".

It may be true that most missions can be accomplished with cheaper planes. But vast majority =/= all current or future missions. Canada has gotten involved in wars in the past where their planes had to provide ground support. There's a chance they might be asked to again. If we decide to go "cheap" and buy planes that only handle what we consider to be average missions, then we'll be paining ourselves into a corner.

[dre]

I think the most important part of that posting was the phrase "vast majority".

It may be true that most missions can be accomplished with cheaper planes. But vast majority =/= all current or future missions. Canada has gotten involved in wars in the past where their planes had to provide ground support. There's a chance they might be asked to again. If we decide to go "cheap" and buy planes that only handle what we consider to be average missions, then we'll be paining ourselves into a corner.

Thats a valid point... Thats why to make a decision like this you need to categorize all your known needs and potential needs, and weigh all your options, and do a cost benefit analysis, and a risk assessment, and then balance that against how much money you actually have on hand to spend.

What are the risk/damages if Nato asks us to provide 40 planes and we can only provide 30? What if they want 4.5 or 5th generation fighters and we only have 4th?. How are we damaged by that? What monetary value can be placed on those damages. Theres answers to all these questions, but we dont have them. Im expected to provide this type of analysis at my company even for a $30 000 IT purchase!

You also have to consider that we have a federal budget defecit meaning that with our current levels of spending we cant even maintain our own debt. That means we are going to have to borrow this money and because of that we will eventually pay even MORE for these planes. Theres risk there too, that should be factored into the analysis.

If they want me to approve this deal (I know they could care less if I do or not) then lets see some data!

I dont even know much about fighter jets. But I DO know a lot about procurement and aquisitions and I can tell your straight up that none of the people in this thread arguing either for or against this purchase have anywhere near enough information to have an informed opinion.

Edited June 25, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I dont even know much about fighter jets. But I DO know a lot about procurement and aquisitions and I can tell your straight up that none of the people in this thread arguing either for or against this purchase have anywhere near enough information to have an informed opinion.

Hmmmmm....sounds like you also know a lot about how to screw up procurement of rotary winged aircraft...something that vexes Canada so. Cramming so many requirements on one platform is a recipe for disappointment and cost overruns.

[Moonbox]

Yup my knowledge is nil, and so is yours. The difference is youre willing to casually approve the spending of 10 billion dollars based on that informational void and Im more hesitant.

You can be hesitant all you want. The fact is that this plane is going to pretty much be the biggest fighter purchase in US history and THEIR record since the mid 70's has been pretty damn strong in that category. The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 were all fantastic planes and did everything they were supposed to and more. Considering the last 35 years has almost always shown the US to be ahead of the curve in virtually all aspects of military technology, I'm willing to put my faith in their expertise instead of yours.

Given that we don't have a military industrial complex of our own, we kind of have to take the leavings of other countries.

Canada has been duped many many times with military equipment. France sold us crap, Brits sold us crap, and the US has also occasionally sold us crap. I think the reason Canada doesn't have a military - is because we always get the crap helicopters and leaky submarines dumped on us. "Oh, just sell it to Canada - they won't need it anyways."

Canada's military procurement problems have been purely political. Our government doesn't plan ahead nor is it willing to invest good money in it, so we're left with crap and hand me downs.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

Generally what happens is producers make deals with government officials that ammount to the tradeoff: "We'll build a factory here if you let us treat your workers super shitty". When all is said and done the workers are lucky to get 30 cents US. Never mind 9 dollars.

Not to do this....not in India....not in China....not in Russia...and not in Canada:

[dre]

Not to do this....not in India....not in China....not in Russia...and not in Canada:

Thats just assembly line work... nothing impressive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats just assembly line work... nothing impressive.

Then stop whining about the cost and do it yourself...if you can.

[dre]

Then stop whining about the cost and do it yourself...if you can.

Not sure what the fuck youre talking about? Try again in english?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure what the fuck youre talking about? Try again in english?

Don't play dumb....do the R&D....build the prototypes....qualify the platform....and build them. If you can't do that, then stop your bitching and pay those who can. Any questions?

[dre]

Don't play dumb....do the R&D....build the prototypes....qualify the platform....

Your video didnt show any of that stuff... It showed the easy assembly line part. Thats why I said its unimpressive.

Try to focus...

Edited June 26, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Your video didnt show any of that stuff... It showed the easy assembly line part. Thats why I said its unimpressive.

Try to focus...

Duh! ...just try to get to the assembly line part if you can. Maybe you are better at ranting and raving about how others do it.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004