Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[M.Dancer]

A hovering helicopter gunship?

As B. Cheney often says, Canada has difficulty buying helicopters...

Also helicopters don't have the range, payload or staying power a fixed wing platform has

[Moonbox]

Those are fly away costs btw..

I would argue against having all our warplanes be of the same type. We need basically 3 types. Air superiority, strike and close ground support. We could do that with 2 but even then, nothing says Hi to the troops like a A-10 thunderbolt.

This pretty much how I feel on the subject right now. If you read way back in this thread I was hardcore on the F-35 bandwagon, until I read a lot more about it.

I'm not sure how Dancer feels about it, but I'm of the opinion we should only buy enough F-35's to be able to participate in foreign operations with the US. 20-25 would be plenty.

The rest of the money should be spent on aircraft that can efficiently and effectively protect our airspace. I like the Eurofighter for what it can do for $80 million or even cheaper updated 4th gen planes.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not sure how Dancer feels about it...

I think it will be the top gun in the sky and cost us far too much.

I think 65 is far too few....by the time they have flown 15 years we will have less than 50...

[Bonam]

As B. Cheney often says, Canada has difficulty buying helicopters...

Also helicopters don't have the range, payload or staying power a fixed wing platform has

Nope, but they definitely "say hi" to the troops better. If we really want an air-force capable of providing close ground support, it needs to include helicopters. This is the problem we come back to... there are many many roles for aircraft to fill. If Canada wants to really have its own military forces fill ALL of these roles, EACH with the specific platform that is most optimized for it... well we'd have to spend MUCH more on our military than we do. Or we can be cheap and get just 1 type of aircraft.

The people complaining about the costs of buying 65 F-35s and saying we should instead get a bunch of different specialized aircraft really don't understand that the cost would end up much higher. More maintenance, more complex logistics, more pilots to train, etc. Heck, the cost of one pilot is comparable to the costs of some of the cheaper planes that people are talking about.

The Canadian air force is structured the way it is precisely for the reason of saving money.

[Moonbox]

The people complaining about the costs of buying 65 F-35s and saying we should instead get a bunch of different specialized aircraft really don't understand that the cost would end up much higher. More maintenance, more complex logistics, more pilots to train, etc. Heck, the cost of one pilot is comparable to the costs of some of the cheaper planes that people are talking about.

The Canadian air force is structured the way it is precisely for the reason of saving money.

The cost of training a new pilot is approx $1.5M, according to American studies. That's negligible compared to the fly away cost of ONE F-35. It's literally irrelevant. The argument that we should ONLY purchase F-35's due to logistical costs is also pretty galling, considering this is a sole-source purchase and the aircraft costs $130 million a pop.

Let's do a little math shall we? Reducing our F-35 order to 20, for example, would save us $5.85B. Instead of the extra 45 F-35's, let's say we instead buy 45 Eurofighters (which have better range, speed etc for air patrols), for $3.6B. I highly doubt that this would be such a logistical nightmare that it would cost us an extra $2.2B to service and maintain our 20 F-35's alongside our Eurofighters. Keep in mind also that the F-35 is already 50% over budget and the prices are still climbing.

This scenario gives us a bit of both worlds. First, we get a modern aircraft to patrol our airspace better than would the F-35, and second, we'd still have 20 F-35's we could operate internationally with the Americans, which is more than we'd likely need any time soon.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

The cost of training a new pilot is approx $1.5M, according to American studies. That's negligible compared to the fly away cost of ONE F-35. It's literally irrelevant. The argument that we should ONLY purchase F-35's due to logistical costs is also pretty galling, considering this is a sole-source purchase and the aircraft costs $130 million a pop.

The whole "sole-source" contract mantra needs to stop: of course it is sole-source, no other company sells F-35s. As for the pilot, the $1.5 million sounds like it doesn't include a lot of things, and as my previous post said, I was referring to that being a big factor if we were to buy lots of cheaper planes as some propose, not to it being a big factor in regards to F-35s.

Instead of the extra 45 F-35's, let's say we instead buy 45 Eurofighters (which have better range, speed etc for air patrols), for $3.6B.

You are assuming that we could get them at 90 mil each.

I highly doubt that this would be such a logistical nightmare that it would cost us an extra $2.2B to service and maintain our 20 F-35's alongside our Eurofighters.

Considering that the maintenance part of the cost estimate for the F-35s represents about half the lifetime cost, you cannot so easily ignore differences in logistics costs. If over their lifetime the Euro-fighters cost just 10-20% more to maintain than the F-35s, they'd end up costing us more in total.

Keep in mind also that the F-35 is already 50% over budget and the prices are still climbing.

And yet Lockheed Martin is promising to have these planes end up costing ~$71 million a pop by the time the US government's acquisition program is complete.

This scenario gives us a bit of both worlds. First, we get a modern aircraft to patrol our airspace better than would the F-35, and second, we'd still have 20 F-35's we could operate internationally with the Americans, which is more than we'd likely need any time soon.

Look, I really have nothing against Eurofighters. They are definitely also a solid aircraft. If the option of having 65 aircraft, some Eurofighters and some F-35s was seriously on the table, it would certainly be worth considering. Is that option actually on the table?

In reality there are just two options:

1) The contract goes through and we end up with our F-35s beginning to be delivered this decade and completed in the 2020s, leaving us with a relatively modernized (if small) airforce.

2) The contract does not go through, years of additional examinations and investigations proceed, perhaps eventually a new contract is developed and signed, and maybe late in the 2020s we'll start getting some other planes. Meanwhile we'll still be flying F-18s that will be 40-50 years old by then. And that's optimistic, future governments might choose not to make acquiring new planes a priority at all and without the current contract we could end up without new aircraft well into the 30s. Maybe we'll just settle for replacing the airframes on our F-18s and flying them for another 50 years while we debate which 8th generation fighter we should get?

The point is, eventually you have to "lock-in" to a certain contract and actually get it done, get physical machines delivered. You can't just keep debating and debating and canceling contracts or you'll end up with nothing.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Bonam

[Moonbox]

The whole "sole-source" contract mantra needs to stop: of course it is sole-source, no other company sells F-35s.

That's not the point. Most armed forces explain what they need out of an aircraft and then open things up for bidding for the aircraft/company that can provide what is asked for the best price. That didn't happen in Canada. Instead of opening up a competitive bidding process, where makers of the F-18E or Eurofighter might have made manufacturing commitments in Canada, our brilliant leaders decided that 5th generation stealth and strike capabilities were absolutely necessary, thus pidgeon-holing us into the F-35 purchase at a ridiculous price (more than $130/plane).

As for the pilot, the $1.5 million sounds like it doesn't include a lot of things, and as my previous post said, I was referring to that being a big factor if we were to buy lots of cheaper planes as some propose, not to it being a big factor in regards to F-35s.

Of course it doesn't include a lot of things, but training a pilot doesn't cost $5M and the suggestion that training costs would make or break the deal, or be a logistical nightmare, is silly considering the price of what we ARE buying.

You are assuming that we could get them at 90 mil each.

They're selling for that to the RAF and Luftwaffe. Open up the bidding to the Rafale, F-18E, Eurofighter, Gripen and F-35 and you'll at least get competitive offers.

Considering that the maintenance part of the cost estimate for the F-35s represents about half the lifetime cost, you cannot so easily ignore differences in logistics costs.

If over their lifetime the Euro-fighters cost just 10-20% more to maintain than the F-35s, they'd end up costing us more in total.

Why would they though? You were talking about the increase logistical cost of operating two different aircraft at the same time. While there would obviously be increased training costs and economies of scale in terms of parts etc, owning 45-50 Eurofighters would likely have similar scale as owning 65 F-35's. The increased costs, therefore, would result from having to train and maintain the 20 F-35's, which can't really be earth-shattering seeing as though other countries will be owning much smaller numbers than we are.

If you're suggesting that the Eurofighter, as a plane, might cost more to maintain than the F-35, however, that's just pure speculation. It could just as easily go both ways, especially considering the F-35 program is not even near being complete and they've never been able to control the costs of it nor have they been able to follow up on any of their promises to the US.

And yet Lockheed Martin is promising to have these planes end up costing ~$71 million a pop by the time the US government's acquisition program is complete.

It doesn't really matter what the program will end up costing. Canada is buying them for over $130M each.

Look, I really have nothing against Eurofighters. They are definitely also a solid aircraft. If the option of having 65 aircraft, some Eurofighters and some F-35s was seriously on the table, it would certainly be worth considering. Is that option actually on the table?

It should be, which is what I'm trying to say. There's no reason it shouldn't be. Canada's DND, for whatever reason, decided that the F-35 is the only plane that can do the job. The question really, is why were the program requirements on Canada's end so specifically geared that the F-35 won a contract by default? Why does Canada need 65 stealthy STRIKE craft, when the vast majority of its missions are air patrol?

The point is, eventually you have to "lock-in" to a certain contract and actually get it done, get physical machines delivered. You can't just keep debating and debating and canceling contracts or you'll end up with nothing.

A few years is hardly going to make a lick of difference, especially considering the money involved. The more we look at our options, the more likely we're going to get competitive offers. Right now this looks political, and it smells REALLY fishy.

[Topaz]

With the way of the cost is rising on this jet, all those "new " jobs for Canadians, how many years will it take to break even in their pay before the debt and interest are paid off on those jets?

[Bonam]

With the way of the cost is rising on this jet, all those "new " jobs for Canadians, how many years will it take to break even in their pay before the debt and interest are paid off on those jets?

I dunno, but continuing some semblance of an aerospace industry will do Canada a lot of good, even if those contracts never add up to the money spent on the jets. Canada needs to hold on to what precious few non-resource non-service jobs we have, particularly in fields of advanced technology.

[Smallc]

Australia has purchased Super Hornets and the F-35

The Super Hornets are mostly a stop gap in that case.

[Smallc]

Like Australia, Spain, Poland, Ukraine right? The costs are just overwhelming them aren't they??? Britain, France, Germany and Italy seem capable of doing so as well, and it's not like they're enormous countries. We're also significantly wealthier than them and have more area to protect.

We aren't wealthier than Australia, Britain, France or Germany. We're on the same field as all of them, except 2 are twice as large, and one is about two and a half times as large. I don't want to live in Poland or the Ukraine, do you? I'd rather spend money on a variety of priorities.

Don't flatter yourself. You didn't disprove anything. The only thing you can justify the purchase of this plane for is for its ability to safely strike ground targets in uncontested airspace. For that alone I think we should probably purchase some of them to allow us to participate in future NATO missions. That doesn't mean we need to buy 65 of them, nor does it preclude the purchase of other, more affordable craft which will be able to field in more meaningful numbers.

Yes it does. You're talking here about billions of dollars when we have other things that need billions of dollars. Especially when you're talking about maintaing separate fleets. Oh, and I didn't disprove it, YEGman did.

The Eurofighter is cheaper, faster, more maneuverable and carries more ordnance. Its benefits are not 'questionable'. For an air patrol/interdiction role, it's a far better choice than the F-35.

Spread 65 planes across it and keep in mind that at any given time >20% of them would likely be down for maintanance. Add their low speed and low range and how can you tell anyone it's a good plane to patrol our airspace with???

Because we're going to have just as many operational aircraft with the same cruise speed and double the range of what we have now.

[Smallc]

It doesn't really matter what the program will end up costing. Canada is buying them for over $130M each.

No we aren't. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence has said more than once that the actual purchase price of the aircraft is $5B. That is about $75M a plane, a price that we have been promised. The over $4B includes related infrastructure at Cold Lake, Bagotville, Montreal, Calgary, and at northern FOBs. They are not more expensive than other jets at the price we have been promised.

[Moonbox]

We aren't wealthier than Australia, Britain, France or Germany. We're on the same field as all of them, except 2 are twice as large, and one is about two and a half times as large. I don't want to live in Poland or the Ukraine, do you? I'd rather spend money on a variety of priorities.

We are wealthier than Britain, Germany and France - not hugely so but we are. Australia is significantly smaller than us, but they're still flying two platforms.

Yes it does. You're talking here about billions of dollars when we have other things that need billions of dollars. Especially when you're talking about maintaing separate fleets. Oh, and I didn't disprove it, YEGman did.

It's a joke to have you telling us here than it's impossible to maintain 2 different fleets of aircraft and that this will somehow magically make costs fly through the roof. It will cause logistical inconveniences, which will cost money, but the savings achieved by buying fewer f-35's and replacing them with cheaper alternatives would more than make up for it.

Because we're going to have just as many operational aircraft with the same cruise speed and double the range of what we have now.

Perfect. Let's spend enormous amounts of money for an aircraft that performs the role we need it for no better than existing aircraft. Oh wait. It has twice the combat range.

Maybe instead we could pay a whole lot less and get an aircraft that's 10-20% faster and has about 6x the combat range? Wouldn't that be nice?

Edited December 24, 2010 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Maybe instead we could pay a whole lot less and get an aircraft that's 10-20% faster and has about 6x the combat range? Wouldn't that be nice?

There's no such thing. The F-35 and the Typhoon have the same range.

[William Ashley]

No we aren't. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence has said more than once that the actual purchase price of the aircraft is $5B. That is about $75M a plane, a price that we have been promised. The over $4B includes related infrastructure at Cold Lake, Bagotville, Montreal, Calgary, and at northern FOBs. They are not more expensive than other jets at the price we have been promised.

Post your source - link the file, or government release DOD report on this.

Canada also intends to pool spare parts with allied F-35 users, another cost-saving measure.

source: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/10/05/cost-of-maintenance-for-canada-s-f-35-same-as-cf-18-says-dnd-but-is-that-true.aspx

Why does Canada need to pool spare parts if it is buying a multi billion dollar warranty on these planes for "free lifetime service"

make sense.. no.

Also this senate debate is of interest

National Defence

F-35 Aircraft Purchase

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. According to the documents in the Pentagon, the United States Department of Defence estimates that the Canadian share of industrial spin-offs from the F-35 fighter jet purchase to be about $3.9 billion. Meanwhile, the Conservative government maintains that $12 billion will be awarded to Canada. Can the leader account for this discrepancy?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I think, honourable senators, the $12 billion figure was given as evidence before a committee in the other place, and it was the industry talking about the direct benefits to Canada and what it would mean not only for the aircraft that we are purchasing, but, because we are in on the ground level. Thanks to the decision of the previous government to commit Canada to this program, the spin-offs and the accessibility for Canadian industries would apply not only to the planes we have in Canada, but to the worldwide manufacture of the aircraft.

It is beyond me, honourable senators, why anyone would not be in favour of this project, which is so vital not only to our Armed Forces but to our industries, especially our aerospace industries in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Senator Moore: I ask the leader to table in the Senate the documents on which the government bases its estimates of the industrial regional spin-offs from the F-35 fighter project.

The United Kingdom has reduced its order from 138 airplanes to 50, and likely in the latest discussion, to 40 units. That number is 25 less than what Canada has committed to purchase, and yet it is already receiving more industrial spin-offs than Canada.

I have not seen, and maybe I missed it, any evidence that the government has attempted to leverage a lower price per jet or guaranteed benefits for industry. The price of the jets has risen from $50 million per unit to $112 million. Today in the paper, the figure is $150 million.

The numbers are jumping dramatically. I do not know if the leader provided for a doubling of the cost in her budgeting. I do not know where that cost is, but I want to know how the leader can justify such a lopsided deal for Canadians.

Senator LeBreton: I think the lopsided deal for Canadians is the 80,000 jobs in our aerospace industry.

Senator Moore: The leader will have to do better than that. She is talking about driving the deficit even higher. Assuming that she provided for the $50 million per unit, now we are into $112 million, maybe $150 million, so who is doing the adding and subtracting here?

Senator Mercer: The plane does not even work.

Senator LeBreton: It is clear, if one goes back to the beginning of this project, when the decision was made, that Canada was to be part of the competitive process to acquire a new aircraft when the use of the CF-18s came to an end.

(1420)

This process that the previous government conducted was a good one. This process was competitive in that other aircraft companies expressed an interest. The only company that could build this aircraft, as decided by the previous government, was Lockheed Martin.

I watched the testimony in the other place and listened to people who work in the aerospace industry, whether in and around the Montreal area or in Winnipeg. I heard a witness answer a question from Dominic LeBlanc, who was also questioning this aircraft. The answer was that a company in his own riding was already involved in providing parts for this aircraft.

I can indicate to Senator Moore only that I will be happy to refer his question to the Department of National Defence and ask them to provide all the information they have and which they are able to reveal, to list for the honourable senator all the benefits of this project, including the 80,000 workers. The bases for these aircraft will be in Bagotville, Quebec; and Cold Lake, Alberta.

Senator Moore: Has the Conservative government considered the recent arrangement or alliance with Great Britain and France with respect to defence spending? Everyone in the Western world seems to be having economic problems, including those two countries, and including Canada.

The only justification for these aircraft that I have heard is to defend the North. I have visited the U.S. base at Anchorage, Alaska, where they have F-18s and F-22s. There are 20-some Canadian officers embedded there, working in command positions.

Why are we endeavouring to take on more than we can handle financially? We have an opportunity to work jointly. We are working jointly now with personnel. The Americans are now purchasing more F-18s, the Super Hornets, and, at $35 million a unit, these aircraft can do the exact same job.

Who are we fighting? What do we need these aircraft for? We can do other things. We can work with other people. We can acquire another aircraft to do the exact same job.

Senator LeBreton: If that is not a typical Liberal defence policy strategy, I do not know what is. The government made this decision based on many years, going back to the previous government's recommendations. This purchase is a good policy. This purchase is the best aircraft. This purchase will provide jobs for an estimated 80,000 aerospace workers. It will benefit the whole country, including engine aircraft builders. This purchase is good policy and it is good for the country. Why anyone would want us to withdraw from the world, basically — because we are part of a worldwide program here — and not have our capable aerospace industries competing with the best is beyond me.

[Translation]

Since this though it appears only austraila and Canada stayed in to purchase (and norway (4 advanced units) and israel but with US grants.

-- however what does this mean to the "residual benefits" to canada.. and why 80,000 workers for 65 planes that is like 1000 people per plane.

this article says it will loose jobs

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2903679

Edited December 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

No we aren't. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence has said more than once that the actual purchase price of the aircraft is $5B. That is about $75M a plane, a price that we have been promised. The over $4B includes related infrastructure at Cold Lake, Bagotville, Montreal, Calgary, and at northern FOBs. They are not more expensive than other jets at the price we have been promised.

Unfortunately that's not the price the plane is expected to come out at. The plane is 4 years behind schedule, 50% over budget and the most generous estimates now are pegging it at $100M/unit while most are anticipating this will continue to increase to upwards of $120-130M.

Get your facts straight.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/f35-fighters-now-double-the-cost-.html

[Smallc]

Our price for the F-35 will be between $70 million and $75 million for a quantum increase in capability. That is not a bad deal.

http://openparliament.ca/politicians/laurie-hawn/?page=6

This is what the government is being told by LM. My facts are straight. The purchase price is about $5B. That doesn't include infrastructure and ordinance. That's probably where the US cost comes from too. We're not going to find anything better for less.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

http://openparliament.ca/politicians/laurie-hawn/?page=6

This is what the government is being told by LM. My facts are straight. The purchase price is about $5B. That doesn't include infrastructure and ordinance. That's probably where the US cost comes from too. We're not going to find anything better for less.

.

Your facts aren't straight. We don't have a firm contract yet. The plane isn't even finished its design phases.

It doesn't matter what the the government is being told by LM. The plane isn't affordable anymore. Lockheed Martin couldn't design the plane the Pentagon wanted for the price they wanted it for in the time frame presented. The US Defence Secretary fired the head of the F-35 program because of the cost overruns. I'm not sure how many different sources you need but I'll keep posting them until you get your head out of the sand. TIME is saying the plane is going to cost $135M/unit.

www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html

(my browser isn't allowing me to link properly)

Even Gates didn't really understand how badly the program was going. He says in this article he was 'bamboozled' by the forecasts from the Pentagon.

Considering that the Americans don't expect to get the plane for less than $130M/unit, and that we don't even have a firm contract with LM, I have no idea why you would think Canada magically gets them for $75M/unit. If that was the case, I'd say this wasn't a bad idea. All signs point to it NOT being the case, however, so it's looking less and less like a good idea.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Considering that the Americans don't expect to get the plane for less than $130M/unit, and that we don't even have a firm contract with LM, I have no idea why you would think Canada magically gets them for $75M/unit. If that was the case, I'd say this wasn't a bad idea. All signs point to it NOT being the case, however, so it's looking less and less like a good idea.

If that really is the case (and I'm not saying that yet, because the DND disagrees with you), then the plane will contract will in fact be closer to $13B, in which case I don't think it should go ahead. If that's the case, the F-18E/F is the only available option at a cost that we can afford, and we should be going for it. What I've shown you is that the government has set aside $5B for the purchase. If it really does cost as much as you're saying, then we are, quite frankly, screwed.

[Moonbox]

If that really is the case (and I'm not saying that yet, because the DND disagrees with you), then the plane will contract will in fact be closer to $13B, in which case I don't think it should go ahead. If that's the case, the F-18E/F is the only available option at a cost that we can afford, and we should be going for it. What I've shown you is that the government has set aside $5B for the purchase. If it really does cost as much as you're saying, then we are, quite frankly, screwed.

The DND can't be more in the loop than the US Def Sec. The whole situation with the F-35 looks to me to be VERY political. So many people have stuck their necks out, and the program has already cost so much, that it looks like it's going ahead regardless of how expensive it ends up being and how lousy the plane is for the dollars spent.

I like the Eurofighter better than the Super Hornet, because it does significantly more, but that's another story altogether.

[Smallc]

I like the Eurofighter better than the Super Hornet, because it does significantly more, but that's another story altogether.

It isn't nearly the multi role aircraft that the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are though. It is a better interceptor, though it isn't necessarily better in the air. If the aircraft really will cost $13B before maintenance and operations, then we should really bail and go for the F-18.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It isn't nearly the multi role aircraft that the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are though. It is a better interceptor, though it isn't necessarily better in the air. If the aircraft really will cost $13B before maintenance and operations, then we should really bail and go for the F-18.

I like Sukhoi's T-50 myself.

[Smallc]

I like Sukhoi's T-50 myself.

Russian technology doesn't have nearly the QA or QC of western tech. Te plane would be far too maintenance intensive, and wouldn't have near the serviceability.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Russian technology doesn't have nearly the QA or QC of western tech. Te plane would be far too maintenance intensive, and wouldn't have near the serviceability.

I said I like it, not that we should buy it. I maintain that what we need to do is dump some money that is owed to us in a project to develop our own plane. That is to say we should build something on license here. The money Bombardier owes the fed should cover a serious and viable proposal to build what we need here in country and save money in the process. All of the profits and jobs are taxable and that will serve to subsidize the effort.

Lets face the reality here folks. we need a viable solution that works on ALL levels because its the citizens dollars being spent on any such project.

[Saipan]

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.

We went up that creek once before with submarines that barely made it across the ocean to Canada. While Chretien bought brand new Lear jets for politicians. Why not couple of Pipers?