Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[William Ashley]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-risky-auditor-general-says/article1773452/

I was startled (all emo like) when I saw the globes articles on the fact the 9 Billion dollar fighter jet purchase of 65 aircraft is actually a 16 billion dollar purchase - and it dawned on me instantaneously that the government was yet again using propaganda and rhetoric - also known as outright lies - to water down the HUGE sole sourced spending item. I was one of few people I encountered who actually supported the 9 Billion deal - because quite frankly there was good value on it (not on the cost of the planes themselves but the collatoral benefits to supporting the lightening program) (although I would have shifted it out to about a delivery of 10 aircraft a year with a breakdown on payment over about 6 and a half years starting in 2012 (or about 1.5 Billion / year from defence spending - after Afghanistan costs were removed.)

The 16 billion is a totally different costing.... I havn't fully examined this but 16 billion seems excessive for 65 aircraft. That is a 1/4 billion dollars for each one.. 250 million a pop... for one aircraft.. that is a lot for one plane - you can buy lots of raptors for that - and raptors are suppose to be more expensive than lightnings.. what the hell?

Yeah for those not in the know the lightening was suppose to be a cheaper variant of

the raptor... huh? what?

Raptor pricetag: $227 million each

Lightening canadian pricetag: 250 million each?

List price for f35

low $89 million

high US$200 million

HUH? what is going on here?

I hear the UK has some harriers and an aircraft carrier they arn't using?

And the royal marines...

wonder if that stuff can be picked up instead on lease or something.

Maybe train on the hurricanes to get a feel for future f35 purchases once tons of cocaine arn't included with the pricetag you know the stuff required to fly the things.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/plan-to-buy-fighter-planes-hit-by-uk-cuts-20101025-170y4.html

Edited October 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

...The 16 billion is a totally different costing.... I havn't fully examined this but 16 billion seems excessive for 65 aircraft. That is a 1/4 billion dollars for each one.. 250 million a pop... for one aircraft.. that is a lot for one plane - you can buy lots of raptors for that - and raptors are suppose to be more expensive than lightnings.. what the hell?

Canada can't buy F-22 Raptors at any price, and neither can any other nation....not for export. Another reason why the F-35 Lightning II is on the Xmas shopping list instead.

Edited October 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[William Ashley]

Canada can't buy F-22 Raptors at any price, and neither can any other nation....not for export. Another reason why the F-35 Lightning II is on the Xmas shopping list instead.

And why isn't the raptor for export other than the fact up until the lightening no one would put down 1/4 of a billion dollars for an aircraft other than the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

And why isn't the raptor for export other than the fact up until the lightening no one would put down 1/4 of a billion dollars for an aircraft other than the US.

The legal reason is US federal law (Congress), but the practical reasons are explained here, which includes the impact on F-35 Lightning sales:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2894.html

[Argus]

I think one of the reasons people get shocked at the high price of aircraft is that, unlike anything else bought, the price generally includes all the maintenance costs and parts over the life of the aircraft. If we did that with cars you'd probably be appalled at the price tag too.

[Alta4ever]

Some one has problems with reading comprehension, the 16 billion includes the maintenance of the aircraft for its service life, the 9 billion is the upfront cost of the aircraft and training equipment.

[nicky10013]

Some one has problems with reading comprehension, the 16 billion includes the maintenance of the aircraft for its service life, the 9 billion is the upfront cost of the aircraft and training equipment.

Which according to Sheila Frasier is a floating cost which depends on how many airframes Lockheed Martin can sell. Specifically, it's based on the average flyaway cost of every F-35 produced for every buyer. If countries, like the UK, drastically slash their orders, our price goes through the roof.

[Alta4ever]

.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

Which according to Sheila Frasier is a floating cost which depends on how many airframes Lockheed Martin can sell. Specifically, it's based on the average flyaway cost of every F-35 produced for every buyer. If countries, like the UK, drastically slash their orders, our price goes through the roof.

Does that reduce the need? Nope. Fine but like any liberal why pay less today when you can pay more later. Much like the fiasco the sea king replacement procurement has become. I wonder what something similar to this will cost taxpayers in ten years when the need becomes desperate and inflation has further eroded the buying power of our dollar. Not to mention the uncertainty of what the Canadian dollar will be worth ten years from now.

Its like buying a home would you rather have bought 30 years ago when the dollar was worth more and the price was 20,000 - 80,000 or today when house prices are 260,000 to 400,000, dollar not having the buying power it once it and your mortgage cost eating up a higher percentage of your income.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

Does that reduce the need? Nope. Fine but like any liberal why pay less today when you can pay more later. Much like the fiasco the sea king replacement procurement has become. I wonder what something similar to this will cost taxpayers in ten years when the need becomes desperate and inflation has further eroded the buying power of our dollar. Not to mention the uncertainty of what the Canadian dollar will be worth ten years from now.

Its like buying a home would you rather have bought 30 years ago when the dollar was worth more and the price was 20,000 - 80,000 or today when house prices are 260,000 to 400,000, dollar not having the buying power it once it and your mortgage cost eating up a higher percentage of your income.

You're off your rocker. This is nothing like replacing the sea king. No one said that the Liberals aren't going to be buying new planes. As a businessman, you should be aware that having an open competition for jets reduces the price, so another one of your arguments out the window. This AND your stance on public transit? Something tells me you're not the business man you brag to be.

[Alta4ever]

You're off your rocker. This is nothing like replacing the sea king. No one said that the Liberals aren't going to be buying new planes. As a businessman, you should be aware that having an open competition for jets reduces the price, so another one of your arguments out the window. This AND your stance on public transit? Something tells me you're not the business man you brag to be.

Who else is producing next generation fighter aircraft? For that matter what is being built for new airframe technology in the western world? Everything that has been put forward as an alternative on this board built by a western nation is airframe technology that is at minimum 20 years old if not older. There is only one company making these unless you want to open the bid again to the other x-35 competitor, boeing. But to open up a production run for 65 aircraft I wonder what the cost on that would be. But please pray tell who else would we get to bid on this contract with the requirements set out by DND? I bet you never knew about the joint strike fighter competition since you were probably too young in the 90's to have noticed it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Being an "educated" soul I would have thought they might have taught you about the the time value of money, inflation, and the effects of such on the purchasing power of currency. I guess I have given the "liberal" education system too much credit.

You know nicky I am too old to be bothered with know it all teenager polisci students who have yet to live and gain a little life experience. Good luck on the ignore list, I am so tired of your rehashed professor's talking points. Go back to school the real world is going to eat you alive!

[Alta4ever]

You're off your rocker. This is nothing like replacing the sea king. No one said that the Liberals aren't going to be buying new planes. As a businessman, you should be aware that having an open competition for jets reduces the price, so another one of your arguments out the window. This AND your stance on public transit? Something tells me you're not the business man you brag to be.

Replacing working buses with hybrids that require more maintenance, an oh so wise investment. No wonder you all live in university campuses you can't see the different between theory and real world application. As I said good luck on my ignore list.

[nicky10013]

Who else is producing next generation fighter aircraft? For that matter what is being built for new airframe technology in the western world? Everything that has been put forward as an alternative on this board built by a western nation is airframe technology that is at minimum 20 years old if not older. There is only one company making these unless you want to open the bid again to the other x-35 competitor, boeing. But to open up a production run for 65 aircraft I wonder what the cost on that would be. But please pray tell who else would we get to bid on this contract with the requirements set out by DND? I bet you never knew about the joint strike fighter competition since you were probably too young in the 90's to have noticed it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Being an "educated" soul I would have thought they might have taught you about the the time value of money, inflation, and the effects of such on the purchasing power of currency. I guess I have given the "liberal" education system too much credit.

You know nicky I am too old to be bothered with know it all teenager polisci students who have yet to live and gain a little life experience. Good luck on the ignore list, I am so tired of your rehashed professor's talking points. Go back to school the real world is going to eat you alive!

I guess bringing up the fact that he isn't really a businessman hit a little too close to home.

As for your link, it actually said nothing about the bidding project. Then again, you probably knew that and figured I wouldn't check.

As for 5th generation, who says Canada needs it? That's what an open tendered process is for. Then again, you knew that. Funny, Conservatives are only for open bids and fiscal responsibility only when it suits them.

Edited October 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Replacing working buses with hybrids that require more maintenance, an oh so wise investment. No wonder you all live in university campuses you can't see the different between theory and real world application. As I said good luck on my ignore list.

So, please, let me know what source you've got that says hybrid buses require more maintenance? I also how you ignored the fact that transportation requires the building of infrastructure such as subway tunnels and streecar tracks which also create jobs. Then again, you knew that, as a businessman, right? Puh-lease.

[wyly]

Which according to Sheila Frasier is a floating cost which depends on how many airframes Lockheed Martin can sell. Specifically, it's based on the average flyaway cost of every F-35 produced for every buyer. If countries, like the UK, drastically slash their orders, our price goes through the roof.

...sounds right...and the estimates from the US DND the cost right now is somewhere between 115-133million per unit, with cancelled orders we have to ask how high can it go?... and we can't trust our DND as they lied to us about the helicopter costs, giving us the base model cost and not the model/options that were actually ordered...

[Alta4ever]

I guess i will have to bold it and post it for the infantile moronic "educated" liberal posters who seem to be illitrate, and unable to comprehend the following second paragraph in the artical.

The program began in November 1996 with a 5-year competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing to determine the most capable and affordable preliminary aircraft design. On 26 October 2001 the Pentagon announced that Lockheed-Martin had won the largest military contract ever, a possible $200 billion competition to build the Joint Strike Fighter. Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said on the basis of strengths, weaknesses and degrees of risk of the program that the Lockheed-Martin team was the winner on a "best- value" basis. He said Lockheed-Martin was a clear winner over the team led by Boeing. Total cost of the contract to enter the systems development and demonstration phase is $19 billion. Pratt and Whitney has a $4 billion contract to design and build propulsion systems for the craft. The British will contribute $2 billion to the program.

Hell its even on wiki

JSF Competition

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design.[8] Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million for the development of the concept demonstrators and definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.[2]

Also in 1996, the UK Ministry of Defence launched the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft project. This program sought a replacement for the Sea Harrier (and later the Harrier GR7); the Joint Strike Fighter was selected in January 2001.

During concept definition, two Lockheed Martin airplanes were flight-tested: the X-35A (which was later converted into the X-35B), and the larger-winged X-35C.[9] Arguably the most persuasive demonstration of the X-35's capability was the final qualifying Joint Strike Fighter flight trials, in which the X-35B STOVL aircraft took off in less than 500 feet (150 m), went supersonic, and landed vertically — a feat that Boeing's entry was unable to achieve.[10]

[edit]Competition Outcome

The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin,[6] whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat.[10]

The United States Department of Defense officials and William Bach, the UK Minister of Defence Procurement, said the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements.[citation needed] The development of the JSF will be jointly funded by the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark .

Lockheed Martin's X-35 would become the basis of the F-35 Lightning II, currently in development. On April 6, 2009 US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the US would buy a total of 2,443 JSFs.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program

Wow look we were part of the competition process having originally signed on to the competition/development program in 1997. Gasp it was a liberal government signing on to the development program! Considering you were probably only 9 or 10 at the time its no wonder you know nothing of the competition process or how Canada was involved then.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Alta4ever

[punked]

My only question is are they being built in Canada. I would rather 16 billion going into our economy then to have a cheaper jet that make another nation rich.

[nicky10013]

I guess lieberal dip_$hits like nicky can't read, your a moron read the artical, second paragraph.

Hell its even on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program

Wow look we were part of the competition process having originally signed on to the competition/development program in 1997. Gasp it was a liberal government signing on to the development program! Considering you were probably only 9 or 10 at the time its no wonder you know nothing of the competition process or how Canada was involved then.

This was a defence contract for the US Military not the Canadian military. They had their own competition. They chose what's best for them and we decided to buy that with no competition of our own. The first article of yours had absolutely nothing on the Canadian contracts and we had no competition.

I guess this is what it looks like to selectively believe facts while rejecting others to fit their own partisan reality. I feel sad for you.

I guess I'm not on the block list afterall.

[The_Squid]

My only question is are they being built in Canada. I would rather 16 billion going into our economy then to have a cheaper jet that make another nation rich.

There isn't the expertise in Canada to build these.... some Canadian companies would receive sub-contracts from Lockheed Martin to do various components, through a bidding process.

Edited October 27, 2010 by The_Squid

[punked]

There isn't the expertise in Canada to build these.... some Canadian companies would receive sub-contracts from Lockheed Martin to do various components, through a bidding process.

Well the question is does this lead to a larger area for the Canadian economy to grow? Is this something we can bring to Canada?

[wyly]

My only question is are they being built in Canada. I would rather 16 billion going into our economy then to have a cheaper jet that make another nation rich.

that's very expensive, better to buy a less expensive plane that'll do the job...if we need more mundane planes I agree we could let Bombardier and others do development work...

[Alta4ever]

Canadian contracts and we had no competition.

What part of investing in the developmental program before the winning of the competition was chosen do you not understand? We put money in in 1997 the winner of the contract was selected in 2001.

In 1997, Canada's Department of National Defence signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of US$10 million. This investment allowed Canada to participate in the extensive and rigorous competitive process where Boeing and Lockheed Martin developed and competed their prototype aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program

As for Canadian competition, educate me, who in Canada is capable of developing and building 5th generation strike fighter aircraft?

We did however get to compete to build pieces of the aircraft, and have investment monies spend in development of this aircraft in Canada. Or would you rather buy something that didn't have any of its development take place in Canada, and contribute nothing to our economy/industry.

Canada has invested approximately $168 million in the JSF program and since 2002, this investment that has led to more than $350 million in contracts with more than 85 Canadian companies, research laboratories, and universities. Canada has already seen a two-to-one return on its investment.

This program provides Canada with a rare opportunity for long-term and high quality work in the aerospace and defence sector. Partner nation acquisitions of the aircraft are expected to exceed 3000 units and overall production could exceed 5000 aircraft worldwide as other non-partner countries replace their aging fighter fleets. Canadian industrial participation on the JSF program is not limited to the work associated with the 65 Canadian aircraft; Canadian companies will contribute to the manufacture and service of thousands of aircraft.

The work packages available for Canadian companies will not only include the manufacturing and assembly of parts but will also include servicing, repair, simulation and training, in addition to numerous other sustainment activities over a 40 year period. Early estimates show that the opportunities available to Canada on production could total $12 billion through these industrial participation plans. Further opportunities from training, simulation and maintenance will add to this figure as the industrial benefits from the JSF program continue to flow to Canadian companies throughout the operational lifespan of the worldwide fleet.

For more information on the Next Generation Fighter Capability, please contact the Department of National Defence at:

1-866-377-0811/613-996-2353

www.forces.gc.ca

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03941.html

[Argus]

that's very expensive, better to buy a less expensive plane that'll do the job...

And if doesn't, well, hell, it's not like it's your far arse on the line, eh?

[Shady]

Which according to Sheila Frasier is a floating cost which depends on how many airframes Lockheed Martin can sell. Specifically, it's based on the average flyaway cost of every F-35 produced for every buyer. If countries, like the UK, drastically slash their orders, our price goes through the roof.

Geez. I wish you penny-pinchers were this upset about the gun registry runaway costs.

[Alta4ever]

that's very expensive, better to buy a less expensive plane that'll do the job...if we need more mundane planes I agree we could let Bombardier and others do development work...

BOMBARDIER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!