Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

[scribblet]

Yuk... who would want to lurk around there, enough to make me whoops my cookies LOL

Okay, I haven't read the thread so if this has been posted before, sorry.... another perspective and some facts on the fighter plan. Issues are not always so black and white.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/vital/4277265/story.html

F-35 jet is vital

Ignatieff flies off course with threats to kill contract

Calgary Herald February 14, 2011 Comments (19)

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has taken aim at the wrong political target by vowing a Liberal government would cancel the multibillion-dollar purchase of F-35 fighter jets.

Ignatieff is playing politics with a vital issue that will backfire on the party if it reneges on a commitment made under a previous Liberal government, to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.

The Liberals under Jean Chretien joined the program in 1997, which is a joint effort among nine countries to determine, develop and build a next generation fighter plane. They came up with the F-35 single engine stealth fighter jet.

Only the nine countries in this deal are eligible to bid on contracts to provide component parts for this highly sophisticated aircraft.

Thus, ending Canada's commitment to purchasing 65 badly needed jets would have enormous consequences, including massive reputational damage, a potential $12-billion loss in direct aerospace jobs, and the risk there will be nothing to replace our aging and outdated fleet of CF-18s, when they reach the end of their operational life, between 2017 and 2020.

According to Industry Canada's website, the partnership Canada entered into undertook an exhaustive process to choose the best replacement for the CF-18, which included participation from Canada's National Defence -the people who know best what they will need. The Liberals under Chretien came to the conclusion, with the help of the Canadian Forces, that the F-35 is the best replacement plane.

Now, Ignatieff is questioning the process, wrongly suggesting there wasn't an open competition, as if this and other potential replacement jets are readily available and already on the market for purchase. That's not how it works. This is a next generation, state-of-theart aircraft that will need the best technology available. cont...

[wyly]

so what's this I hear this morning on CBC, the actual total cost may be closer to 30 billion...

[waldo]

so what's this I hear this morning on CBC, the actual total cost may be closer to 30 billion...

per early 'leak' of today's upcoming release of the 'budgetary watchdog' report from Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page:

An explosive report on the Harper government’s controversial purchase of new fighter jets estimates their total lifetime cost, including maintenance, could hit $29.3-billion (U.S.), The Globe and Mail has learned.

That’s the “total ownership cost” of the stealth jets over 30 years of service expressed in 2009 dollars.

.

.

Figures released by the government have suggested the total cost would be about $16-billion, which includes about $9-billion to purchase and years of maintenance that the government says would be no different from the annual costs of maintaining the CF-18 fighters currently in service.

Mr. Page’s report estimates the jets will cost about $149-million each but over their lifetime will run about $450-million per plane in support and maintenance.

The government has said the per-unit purchase cost of each plane is about $70-million to $75-million each – although other estimates have pegged them at $91-million each.

[Moonbox]

That's what I've been trying to say all along. US officials are predicting the program is going to come out with production costs of $120 million per plane, the Pentagon is furious about it but too far invested, and somehow magically people think the Canadian planes are going to come out on budget. Doesn't make sense to me.

We might as well start buying B2's at that cost lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's what I've been trying to say all along. US officials are predicting the program is going to come out with production costs of $120 million per plane, the Pentagon is furious about it but too far invested, and somehow magically people think the Canadian planes are going to come out on budget. Doesn't make sense to me.

Apples and oranges...the US costs per plane over the entire program are now largely driven by production quantities. Costs for R&D, tooling, supplier base development, etc. are already realized. F-35's will cost Canada whatever it decides to spend, not what the Americans spent/spend.

We might as well start buying B2's at that cost lol.

Sorry...B-2's are no longer in production and were never available for export.

[Moonlight Graham]

The war on climate change cannot be won without these jets! To launch a successful attack on climate, Canada needs this superior air fighting technology.

CO2 WILL HAVE NOWHERE TO HIDE!! AHAHAAHAHA!!!!

[Moonbox]

Apples and oranges...the US costs per plane over the entire program are now largely driven by production quantities.

Doesn't seem like they're too pleased with the costs so far. At any rate, costs per plane are driven by production values not per order per country, but by overall sales.

Costs for R&D, tooling, supplier base development, etc. are already realized. F-35's will cost Canada whatever it decides to spend, not what the Americans spent/spend.

If only we could just decide how much each plane would cost us. That'd be nice

Sorry...B-2's are no longer in production and were never available for export.

I know thanks.

[segnosaur]

so what's this I hear this morning on CBC, the actual total cost may be closer to 30 billion...

...

per early 'leak' of today's upcoming release of the 'budgetary watchdog' report from Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page

An explosive report on the Harper government’s controversial purchase of new fighter jets estimates their total lifetime cost, including maintenance, could hit $29.3-billion (U.S.), The Globe and Mail has learned.

That’s the “total ownership cost” of the stealth jets over 30 years of service expressed in 2009 dollars.

Not sure what the case is here (since the article doesn't go into significant detail about what the exact costs are). However, from the looks of things, the costs from the budget office are for 30 years of usage for the plane; on the other hand, figures quoted by the conservatives appear to be for a 20 year life span (From the article: “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support,” he said..)

So, it may not necessarily be a case of the planes being "overpriced" (or having their costs increased); it may just be that each side is considering a different active life span for the plane. However, even if some plane other than the F35 is chosen it will likely have the same result... costs at the end of a plane's expected life span often have increased costs as upgrades and increased maintenance becomes necessary. (Much like the way my 10 year old car costs more when I bring it to the mechanic now than in the first year than I bought it.)

Edited to add: Keep in mind that some of the alternatives, such as the Super Hornet, and the Gripen, have been in service for over a decade. While that does make their short term costs a lot more predictable, it also means that any upgrades will likely be required sooner than for an all-new Jet like the F-35.

Edited March 10, 2011 by segnosaur

[William Ashley]

There are plenty of alternatives.

At 30 billion dollars Canada could run its own program.

Also the technology is dated already, and the russians have a better more cost effective plane.

This is what they have now..

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

The program cost here was between 8-10 billion with a 100 million unit cost.

that is maybe 16.5Billion for this bare bones development.For Canada's own technology, and own aircrafts FULLY 100% canadian with the money staying in Canada (meaing that a 30+% reduction would be expected..

bringing the programs and planes to about 11 billion..

or just the planes themselves 65 would cost say 6.5 billion... not saying this is the way to go, but I am saying that at 30 billion the f35 should be a dead program - when the DND only forcast a need of 9 billion.. it is over a 300% markup.. totally not supportable.

I have no doubt in my mind I could make a more effective program for less than this

its dated technology from 15 years ago.

Even the IAF is considering a mig.

This isn't 2000 there are a lot more options on the table...

http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/02/26/top-10-best-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-projects/

planesare mince to railguns. 10 years down the road this ain't very usuable.

Edited March 10, 2011 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

There are plenty of alternatives.

At 30 billion dollars Canada could run its own program.

Do you really think so?

If you look at the cost of the PAK FA program you referred to lower in your post, the cost of the program plus a fleet of 65 planes would be around $16 billion. And that doesn't include any long term maintenance/upgrades (which is likely going to end up more or less doubling the price). So you're talking even more money than for the F35 fighter jet.

Not to mention the fact that countries like the U.S. or Russia have substantial aerospace infrastructure to leverage any new development over. Canada would have to build its fighter-jet industry from the ground up, which would likely increase costs.

Also the technology is dated already, and the russians have a better more cost effective plane.

This is what they have now..

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

These arguments again? I thought this sort of thing had already been hashed out long ago.

The F35 had its first test flight half a decade ago. The Sukhoi only had its first test flight last year, and there have only been 2 built, and according to Wikipedia, one of them hasn't even flown yet. The F35 appears to be much further ahead in its development cycle.

Every new plane is likely to experience cost overruns and design problems. Do you think the PAK FA will be any different? (Since it is further behind in its development cycle, I'd expect more problems in the future with it than with the F35.

Then there's the other factors: no guarantee that Canadian industry would benefit from it, it may result in compatibility issues with NATO allies, etc.

[GWiz]

Ahhh, TOTAL VINDICATION is such a beautiful thing....

[GWiz]

There are plenty of alternatives.

At 30 billion dollars Canada could run its own program.

Also the technology is dated already, and the russians have a better more cost effective plane.

This is what they have now..

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

The program cost here was between 8-10 billion with a 100 million unit cost.

that is maybe 16.5Billion for this bare bones development.For Canada's own technology, and own aircrafts FULLY 100% canadian with the money staying in Canada (meaing that a 30+% reduction would be expected..

bringing the programs and planes to about 11 billion..

or just the planes themselves 65 would cost say 6.5 billion... not saying this is the way to go, but I am saying that at 30 billion the f35 should be a dead program - when the DND only forcast a need of 9 billion.. it is over a 300% markup.. totally not supportable.

I have no doubt in my mind I could make a more effective program for less than this

its dated technology from 15 years ago.

Even the IAF is considering a mig.

This isn't 2000 there are a lot more options on the table...

http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/02/26/top-10-best-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-projects/

planesare mince to railguns. 10 years down the road this ain't very usuable.

Latest cost per plane CAPPED at $112 Million per Plane in US... Export cost projected at $132 Million PER depending on production run...

- The February 2010 restructure reflects the direction ordered by the Secretary in an acquisition decision memorandum issued on February 24 and revised on 03 March 2010. Completing system development and approving full-rate production is now expected in April 2016, about 2 ½ years later than planned in the acquisition program baseline approved in 2007.

On March 11, 2010, the Government Accountability Office reported that the current estimated investment is $323 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft. Total estimated acquisition costs had increased $46 billion and development extended 2½ years, compared to the program baseline approved in 2007. Aircraft unit costs will likely exceed the thresholds established by the statutory provision commonly referred to as Nunn-McCurdy and require the Department to certify the need for the JSF to Congress. The Nunn-McCurdy law requires that Congress be notified of a cost growth of more than 15 percent in a program. It also calls for cancellation of programs for which total cost grew by more than 25 percent over the original estimate. -

[wyly]

Not sure what the case is here (since the article doesn't go into significant detail about what the exact costs are). However, from the looks of things, the costs from the budget office are for 30 years of usage for the plane; on the other hand, figures quoted by the conservatives appear to be for a 20 year life span (From the article: “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support,” he said..)

So, it may not necessarily be a case of the planes being "overpriced" (or having their costs increased); it may just be that each side is considering a different active life span for the plane. However, even if some plane other than the F35 is chosen it will likely have the same result... costs at the end of a plane's expected life span often have increased costs as upgrades and increased maintenance becomes necessary. (Much like the way my 10 year old car costs more when I bring it to the mechanic now than in the first year than I bought it.)

Edited to add: Keep in mind that some of the alternatives, such as the Super Hornet, and the Gripen, have been in service for over a decade. While that does make their short term costs a lot more predictable, it also means that any upgrades will likely be required sooner than for an all-new Jet like the F-35.

elsewhere in this thread supporters of the purchase claim the plane will serve us for 40yrs now you have us either buying new planes in 20 yrs or upgrading this one in 20...you can't have it both ways...

using a 20 year timeline isn't realistic as we both know based on Canada's past record any new purchase will be around a long time...it would be like me telling Mrs. wyly that a new Ferrari in our driveway will only cost a $1000 a month for the next 4 years or $48,000 ...

[Bonam]

There are plenty of alternatives.

At 30 billion dollars Canada could run its own program.

Also the technology is dated already, and the russians have a better more cost effective plane.

This is what they have now..

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

The program cost here was between 8-10 billion with a 100 million unit cost.

You do realize that the program costs of something in Russia bare no resemblance to what a similar program would cost in Canada, right? In Russia, you don't have crazy overhead due to oversight and bureaucracy requirements, you have much lower safety standards, and you have much lower cost of labour. Russia carries out programs comparable to American ones at a tiny fraction of the cost. The Russian space agency, for example, has functioned on only a tiny fraction of the amount of funding that NASA has, and yet has accomplished many comparable feats. In comparison, the Canadian space agency can barely run an office building. In Canada, the costs of a program to develop a 5th gen fighter would be similar to what the costs are in the US, or higher since we don't have the starting infrastructure that the US does, not to what they are in Russia. To develop our own plane similar to the F-35 would cost us at the very minimum $100 billion.

[segnosaur]

Not sure what the case is here (since the article doesn't go into significant detail about what the exact costs are). However, from the looks of things, the costs from the budget office are for 30 years of usage for the plane; on the other hand, figures quoted by the conservatives appear to be for a 20 year life span

elsewhere in this thread supporters of the purchase claim the plane will serve us for 40yrs now you have us either buying new planes in 20 yrs or upgrading this one in 20...you can't have it both ways...

Actually, I'm not trying to do either one. The original poster appeared to be presenting this as a "this plane has massive cost overruns" type argument. I am just trying to examine the situation with a little rationality.

I am not sure what will happen in 30 years. (What upgrades to our planes will be necessary, what alternatives there will be, how much ongoing maintenance will be needed.) These are new planes, with all sorts of problems that you'd expect from new technology. But any evaluation of potential fighter planes should be done under fair circumstances. Complaining only about the F35s post-20 year costs without considering the costs of similar planes in the same time frame is not making a fair comparison.

using a 20 year timeline isn't realistic as we both know based on Canada's past record any new purchase will be around a long time...

You're right, purchases will be around a long time. That's why I'm rather skeptical about suggestions to buy the Super-hornet instead of the F35... its a fine plane now, but it is already a decade old. There's more chance it will need major upgrades in the far future.

it would be like me telling Mrs. wyly that a new Ferrari in our driveway will only cost a $1000 a month for the next 4 years or $48,000 ...

Yeah but what if instead of getting the Ferrari, you bought a Ford P.O.S. (or whatever your worst care is), and you needed to bring it to the mechanic to have it serviced a week after you bought it, rather than years down the road?

[Mr.Canada]

It makes sense to only buy a plane that our allies will be using as well. In terms of war time parts and repairs.

[wyly]

It makes sense to only buy a plane that our allies will be using as well. In terms of war time parts and repairs.

...our allies fly many types of planes with no downside, do the euro's care that we don't fly the mirage, typhoon's, harrier's, Rafale's, Tornado's? no...does it affect their parts supply ? no...wars last weeks at most so parts won't be an issue and the manufacturer of any plane we buy will have the parts needed...

[scribblet]

Maybe some perspective is needed on this purchase and not through the lenses of biased partisanship...

you all and the opposition must know that the deal includes life time maintenance and local contracts, to cancel it now would cause more problems than keeping it. Just my opinion mind..

[waldo]

Not sure what the case is here (since the article doesn't go into significant detail about what the exact costs are). However, from the looks of things, the costs from the budget office are for 30 years of usage for the plane; on the other hand, figures quoted by the conservatives appear to be for a 20 year life span (From the article: “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support,” he said..)

the article's wording is somewhat... nuanced. The sentence prior to your quote extract reads, "The Conservatives said Thursday they are not budging from their cost estimates, which total about $17.6-billion over 30 years". So, that wording is consistent with PBO Page's report time-frame...

or, perhaps MacKay's wording is more purposeful/slanted, when he states, “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support”. Which, of course, lines up with the numbers the Harper Government™ are relying upon, as provided by DND. However, PBO Page speaks directly to those DND numbers:

It's hard for me to understand how you stand by an acquisition cost of $70-million," said Page. He said that figure is likely from Lockheed Martin and "it's somewhat dated."

Page cautions that any cost estimates, his own or those from other sources, should be viewed in the context of the methodology used and the data available. The budget officer said in his report that his office

asked DND to explain the methodology behind its estimates.

"DND confirmed that such an analysis has not yet been undertaken,"

the report says.

say what? DND has not actually performed an analysis to explain the methodology behind its estimates!!!

[Wild Bill]

...our allies fly many types of planes with no downside, do the euro's care that we don't fly the mirage, typhoon's, harrier's, Rafale's, Tornado's? no...does it affect their parts supply ? no...wars last weeks at most so parts won't be an issue and the manufacturer of any plane we buy will have the parts needed...

You're forgetting that we're Canadians, Wyly! Every time we join our allies in a mission we're always the guys that need a ride there and don't have enough bombs or ammo to do our part of the job. So we wind up bumming from our allies. Have you forgotten our Kosovo experiences, if nothing else?

If we're the only guys there flying MIGs then we will have no one to bum from! If we didn't have it or didn't bring it we're beat!

[wyly]

You're forgetting that we're Canadians, Wyly! Every time we join our allies in a mission we're always the guys that need a ride there and don't have enough bombs or ammo to do our part of the job. So we wind up bumming from our allies. Have you forgotten our Kosovo experiences, if nothing else?

If we're the only guys there flying MIGs then we will have no one to bum from! If we didn't have it or didn't bring it we're beat!

and that counters my point??? if we don't have bombs or spare parts at hand it's because we haven't stockpiled any it has nothing to do with what our allies use or don't use...thanks for throwing in the Mig comment some of our allies fly those as well are they concerned we can't supply them with MIG parts? no...this parts issue is just part of a smoke screen to justify a plane we can not afford or more importantly will ever need...

[Mr.Canada]

a plane we can not afford or more importantly will ever need...

I didn't realize that you were clairvoyant. Why wouldn't we need it? because we have the Americans to the south? We have to pull our own weight as well not just sit around waiting for people to fight our battles. International respect is given because of the strength of ones armed forces.

[GWiz]

the article's wording is somewhat... nuanced. The sentence prior to your quote extract reads, "The Conservatives said Thursday they are not budging from their cost estimates, which total about $17.6-billion over 30 years". So, that wording is consistent with PBO Page's report time-frame...

or, perhaps MacKay's wording is more purposeful/slanted, when he states, “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support”. Which, of course, lines up with the numbers the Harper Government™ are relying upon, as provided by DND. However, PBO Page speaks directly to those DND numbers:

say what? DND has not actually performed an analysis to explain the methodology behind its estimates!!!

In 1996 the beginning:

- Lockheed Martin Corp. is developing the F-35 at its fighter aircraft plant in Fort Worth, where the new stealth warplane is expected to provide about 9,000 jobs over the next three to four decades. Northrop Grumman Corp. is to build the F-35's center fuselage in California and BAE Systems the aft body in England. -

- The Navy's F-35C version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

- The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven strike fighter with built-in versatility. The Super Hornet's suite of integrated and networked systems provides enhanced interoperability, total force support for the combatant commander and for the troops on the ground.

The Super Hornet was built by a team that includes Boeing, Northrop Grumman, GE Aircraft Engines, Raytheon, and more than 1,800 suppliers in the United States and Canada.

First production model delivered to the U.S. Navy in December 1998

Entered service in November 1999-

The SUPER HORNET is by FAR the better choice since it's FAR more capable in performing the DUTIES that CANADA expects their "FRONT LINE" Fighter Aircraft to do, it's a PROVEN airframe, it's NEWER than the F-35 in capability...

100+ F-18e/f SUPER HORNETS would COST LESS than $5 BILLION DELIVERED and the "support" terms offered by Boeing, considering MOST maintenance infrastructure is already in place (via the F-18 facilities) means that rather than being an additional COST Boeing has ofered CANADA a "primary maintenance function" contract such that CANADA will actually PROFIT from it's ability to MAINTAIN it's Aircraft alongside MAINTAINING OTHER COUNTRY'S F-18a/b/c/d/e/f 's long into the FUTURE... (Boeing US will "change over" to 5th and 6th generation, F-22, unmanned aircraft, maintenance in the US)

HELL of a deal...

[Mr.Canada]

First production model delivered to the U.S. Navy in December 1998

Entered service in November 1999-[/i]

100+ F-18e/f SUPER HORNETS would COST LESS than $5 BILLION DELIVERED

HELL of a deal...

So you'd rather have an aircraft with technology that will be 15-20 years old by the time we receive our first one? Even if we bought these they will have to be replaced 15-20 years before an F-35 would. Pay less today to pay more later doesn't make any sense.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Moonbox]

The SUPER HORNET is by FAR the better choice since it's FAR more capable in performing the DUTIES that CANADA expects their "FRONT LINE" Fighter Aircraft to do, it's a PROVEN airframe, it's NEWER than the F-35 in capability...

You don't know what you're talking about. The Super Hornet would be close to a 20 year old design by the time Canada replaced its CF-18's. Within 5-10 years we'd be in the exact same position we're in now. We'd have an aircraft nearing the end of its relevance. The US, for example, is planning to start retiring them and replacing them by 2025. Why would we buy into that???