F35 procurement now on CPAC

[Moonbox]

in computer comabt simulations the Typhoons eliminated 85% 0f F35's, they're not that good ...and we have no need of them, a super hornet is more than enough for any potential enemy we may do battle with, any country with better technology we won't be doing battle with because they'll brush aside our defenses regardless of F35's...

A British simulation where the F-35's were outnumbered and flying in close formation while the Typhoons knew where they'd be coming from and thus knew to wide formation and get side radar signatures. It didn't seem like something realistic.

[bud]

I've heard the Liberals say they would have a competion. I have not heard what the NDP's plan is.

I'd ask the Liberals this: Have a competion with who? Other than the F-35, the only other western aircraft in production are:

F-18 Superhornet

F-15 Silent Eagle

F-16 (whatever the latest block version is)

Eurofighter

Gripen NG

Rafale

All inferior to the F-35.

so what?

do we really need all the accessories that come with the F35? is there a reason to pay so much to get a ferrari when a bmw, which is at most 1/4 of the price would be more than sufficient?

[Tilter]

Jack Layton said (paraphrasing) The CF18 comes to the end of its useful life in 2017 or 2018 but the real priority is our Navy. he then went on about building and designing our own ships etc etc...He said it in Vancouver I believe, early to middle in the campaign.

The EuroFighter is a pretty damned cool plane but not as good as the F35. Still cool though.

I don't disagree with you Derek.

Yeah, the navy is the best option proven in the States when a very small number of A/C in a practice war, sunk most of the fleet.

Oh he means Subs--- are any of the Canadian subs serviceable yet?

I like the options given about the "competition"

F-18 Superhornet

F-15 Silent Eagle

F-16 (whatever the latest block version is)

Eurofighter

Ripen NG

Rafale

All inferior to the F-35.

F-18 Superhornet --- Old beefed up design--- already outdated

F-15 Silent Eagle--- Massive engine problems, fast when engines run properly

F-16 (whatever the latest block version is)we rejected the idea before. Is it better now??

Eurofighter too old, small, small payload, short range,

Ripen NG are they sold in Ikea?????// see Eurofighter

Rafale--- who needs something French? Dassault Rafale

First flight 4 July 1986

Introduced 4 December 2000

Status Active

Primary users French Air Force

French Navy

Program cost €39.6 billion (1 January 2008[1])

Unit cost Rafale C: €64 million, US$82.3 million (flyaway cost, 2008)[1]

for a 1986 airplane?

Edited April 27, 2011 by Tilter

[Scotty]

Here's an idea, if the conservatives are soooooo sure that he F35 is the one and that the price will NOT go up, then they should sign a contract stating that if any increase in price, the whole party will resign there jobs on the spot!! OR they can have an open tender, which should be the way.

Why? Here's as good an idea. Get the Liberals and NDP to flat out state what they intend to do and how it will save us as much as one penny. As far as I know both are committed to buying new jets, and there are no cheaper jets unless you want to equip the Forces with second rate aircraft.

Is that what you are proposing?

[Scotty]

Nope. Cost estimates are for the A variant. They're all going to be way over budget. To say that the F-35B is somehow going to be 50-100% more expensive simply because it's STVOL is ridiculous. If that was the case it'd be smarter just to design a completely new fighter from scratch.

So what's your answer? What do you suggest we do. Rely on the Americans to take care of air defense for us?

[wyly]

Yeah, the navy is the best option proven in the States when a very small number of A/C in a practice war, sunk most of the fleet.

Oh he means Subs--- are any of the Canadian subs serviceable yet?

I like the options given about the "competition"

F-18 Superhornet --- Old beefed up design--- already outdated

F-15 Silent Eagle--- Massive engine problems, fast when engines run properly

F-16 (whatever the latest block version is)we rejected the idea before. Is it better now??

Eurofighter too old, small, small payload, short range,

Ripen NG are they sold in Ikea?????// see Eurofighter

Rafale--- who needs something French? Dassault Rafale

First flight 4 July 1986

Introduced 4 December 2000

Status Active

Primary users French Air Force

French Navy

Program cost €39.6 billion (1 January 2008[1])

Unit cost Rafale C: €64 million, US$82.3 million (flyaway cost, 2008)[1]

for a 1986 airplane?

trying to dazzle us once again with how little you know with a poor cut and paste ...

the Eurofighter too old like our 60 yr old cf18's, came into service in 2004...I don't know how I missed those CF18s flying about in the 50's and 60's no wonder the Arrow was cancelled

oh the super hornet is soooo outdated the US Navy has ordered more

here's the latest on the F35 "expected to have higher than normal maintenance problems"

let's be honest here you never served in the airforce you know dick all about planes....

[Guest Derek L]

You question the source of the estimate? The estimates are coming from the US Government Accountability Office and being echoed by nearly everyone in the business. A few key quotes from their statement:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11450t.pdf

Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs.

Program Has Still Not Fully Demonstrated a Stable Design and Mature Manufacturing Processes as It Enters Its Fifth Year of Production

On page 16 it shows an average program cost of $156/unit and an actual procurement cost of $133M/plane. The F-35B is expected to cost approx $159M/plane.

The US DoD is purchasing 2400 planes. It wouldn't be surprising given recent history for this number to go down. If the US is only ordering 2400, where would the other 2600 come from? There literally isn't a market for it anywhere. At this rate they're going to be hard-pressed to make it 3000 units and if we're going to use history as a guideline it would suggest that the price will go up and the orders will go down.

Harper's figures are based on literally nothing. Even if you want to present the average cost of all 3 planes in the most favourable light possible, none of the math would support a $77M/unit price. Over 70% of the fighters the US will be buying will be the F-35A variant. The F-35C naval variant will make up the bulk of the rest of the planes the US will be purchasing. The F-35B has a small niche of service with the marines and some third rate powers in Europe. It's only expected to cost around 20% more than the F-35A and is expected to make up for probably less than 10% of the orders. It has a negligible impact on the averages.

The only estimate pegging the plane at $77M/plane is coming from Harper and he's only saying that for optics. I agree with the purchase of the plane in principle but don't BS us on the numbers.

I do question the source, and the methods used in how they reached that number, just as you question Harper’s numbers. During the program on CPAC, they explained how our auditor general came up with the numbers. They used a calculation, that assigned a dollar figure per pound/kg ( I forget which) of the complete aircraft weight, based on an average of all US aircraft’s final cost, per pound, since the 1950s.

This method I feel is wrong since it doesn’t factor in a number of things, be they cost of steel, the use of composites in building modern aircraft today, the size and costing of computers since the 50s, cost of labor versus automation/robotics or the actual designing of the aircraft, draftsmen’s with pencil and T-bar versus CAD.

Also, what aircraft is it using? Just mass produced aircraft such as F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks, or does it also use the SR-71 and F-117, both aircraft that pioneered extremely new technologies and cost a fortune.

Does the average include engine development? What about radars and weapons systems?

What about aircraft that used the development of a prior aircraft(s), and built upon them? (YF-17/F-18 Hornet/F-18E Super Hornet/EA-18Growler) What about when American companies, improved on a foreign design (Harrier & Goshawk), does that include the foreign money spent originally?

I highly doubt the US order will drop further, even under Obama, for two reasons. First, they USAF are giving up further F-22 orders in lieu of JSF. Second, the United States Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Navy and Marine Corp have to replace their legacy fleets (F-15,F-16,F-18,Av-8B and A-10), some of the older aircraft are literally falling out of the skies.

Some of these aircraft could be life extended, and replaced with sixth generation fighters and/or UCAVs, but these are decades away and likely won’t be any cheaper. What will likely happen, like is now with additional orders of Super Hornets, is additional F-35s will be tacked on at the end of the production run.

As for other nations, the expected totals to current partners:

Australia ~ 70

The Dutch ~80

United Kingdom~100

Turkey~100

Israel~100+

Dennmark~48

Norway~50

Italy~120

Canada~65

Other possible orders, with India (100+), Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Greece, could push the JSF numbers into the 4000-5000 range. Remember, the JSF will be built for decades, and even if the “possible orders” are not made for another 10-15 years, Canadian aerospace industries will be involved through the duration.

I agree that Harper should have explained in greater detail how he came up with his number estimate. Are they based on future potential orders? Are the based on some calculation that involves the money earned by Canadian industry in building parts for the entire program, then subtracting it from the base per plane purchase cost? I dunno….

Regardless, as I’ve said numerous times, of cost, what are the Liberals/NDP’s plan on Hornet replacement?

[Guest Derek L]

in computer comabt simulations the Typhoons eliminated 85% 0f F35's, they're not that good ...and we have no need of them, a super hornet is more than enough for any potential enemy we may do battle with, any country with better technology we won't be doing battle with because they'll brush aside our defenses regardless of F35's...

Was it a BVR engagement? A Dogfight? Did Typhoon have AWACS Support? Which Tranche of Typhoon? What airforces, were flying what aircraft? Where the JSF carrying weapons internally or externally?

As for need, intial airstrikes on Kosavo and Lybia where done with cruise misslies and stealth aircraft to negate both countries circa 1970 air defense networks. Did you forsee Canadian involvment in Lybia back in, say December?

Who says that we will be the one on the defensive?

Would you have advocated the Canadian airforce in the 1960s purchasing a mark V Spitfires as opposed to the historic purchase of the Vodoos & Starfighters?

[Guest Derek L]

so what?

do we really need all the accessories that come with the F35? is there a reason to pay so much to get a ferrari when a bmw, which is at most 1/4 of the price would be more than sufficient?

The so what attitude sent Canadian men and women into the first rotations into Afghanistan with green camouflage, thin skinned Iltis jeeps and antique communication equipment that could not directly communicate with allied aircraft.

[Scotty]

so what?

do we really need all the accessories that come with the F35? is there a reason to pay so much to get a ferrari when a bmw, which is at most 1/4 of the price would be more than sufficient?

Your view that we could get a fighter plane for 1/4rd the cost which wouldn't be a piece of junk is pure fantasy.

[bud]

The so what attitude sent Canadian men and women into the first rotations into Afghanistan with green camouflage, thin skinned Iltis jeeps and antique communication equipment that could not directly communicate with allied aircraft.

please quit it with the emotional rhetoric. your comment is as embarrassing as peter mackay announcing that cancelling the deal would "endanger the lives of Canadian pilots" and "endanger the sovereignty of this country".

most people here are too smart for that.

why not purchase jets that are proven to work and have all the necessary features that we need. all these 'extra' billions that are going to be used on planes which are not even completed and have not been approved for use, not to mention that they don't seem to have a cap in costs could be going into other defense programs that are needed.

the question of usefulness of this aircraft aside, i'm not sure why you are not questioning the matter in which harper has gone about these jets. i'm not sure why it doesn't bother you that harper decided to give a blank check, without any competition for the contracts to purchase jets that do not seem to have a ceiling in costs. jets that are not even certified and proven to work.

the military industrial complex has a lot of power. they spend a lot of money in lobbying the government and on public relations in order to get these billion dollar contracts. with all due respect, why are you doing all this free work for them? even if you support a particular party, there is nothing wrong with questioning an obviously wrong action.

[bud]

Your view that we could get a fighter plane for 1/4rd the cost which wouldn't be a piece of junk is pure fantasy.

really?

here is some reality for you. how much does a FA 18 superhornet cost? $55 million. how much for the F35's that are not even certified to work properly? estimated to be $190+ million each.

i would suggest that you make some kind of an effort and try to come up with facts to debate with someone, instead of what you do.

Edited April 28, 2011 by bud

[Guest Derek L]

please quit it with the emotional rhetoric. your comment is as embarrassing as peter mackay announcing that cancelling the deal would "endanger the lives of Canadian pilots" and "endanger the sovereignty of this country".

most people here are too smart for that.

why not purchase jets that are proven to work and have all the necessary features that we need. all these 'extra' billions that are going to be used on planes which are not even completed and have not been approved for use, not to mention that they don't seem to have a cap in costs could be going into other defense programs that are needed.

the question of usefulness of this aircraft aside, i'm not sure why you are not questioning the matter in which harper has gone about these jets. i'm not sure why it doesn't bother you that harper decided to give a blank check, without any competition for the contracts to purchase jets that do not seem to have a ceiling in costs. jets that are not even certified and proven to work.

the military industrial complex has a lot of power. they spend a lot of money in lobbying the government and on public relations in order to get these billion dollar contracts. with all due respect, why are you doing all this free work for them? even if you support a particular party, there is nothing wrong with questioning an obviously wrong action.

It's not "emotional rhetoric", it's fact. Do you dispute any of my claims about the first rotations into the Dirt Box?

As for "proven jets", a few points. First, when we purchase the F-35, like the Hornet today, it will likely be in service for thirty plus years. A Super Hornet, in the 2040-2050 timeframe will be as antiquated as a Korean war era F-86 Sabre is today.

Second, when we bought the current CF-18s, they were not even certified and proven to work. Third, there was a competition, the largest in aviation history, between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed X-35. Lockheed won.

As for why I support it, simple, the F-35 is the best choice for Canada & NATO. The Liberals signed us up years ago, and if the shoe was on the other foot and the Tories were pushing a lesser aircraft, Id be opposed to it as well.

The other parties are trying to make a issue out of nothing. As Ive said, I dont know what the NDP would do (Kites?), but if the Liberals now have back-stepped for political reasons, and hold a competition, well see the same results as the maritime helicopter replacement program: Decades late, a lesser design picked for political reasons, and no savings what so ever. (Go read up on the EH-101)

Edited April 28, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

really?

here is some reality for you. how much does a FA 18 superhornet cost? $55 to 85 million. how much for the F35's that are not even certified to work properly? estimated to be $435+ million each. i guess that would make the cost close to 1/8 less.

i would suggest that you make some kind of an effort and try to come up with facts to debate with someone, instead of what you do.

The Australians just purchased 24 Super Hornets for 6.6 Billion to fill the gap of their retired F-111s. The Super Hornets will replaced under the Australian JSF order.

[Moonbox]

I do question the source, and the methods used in how they reached that number, just as you question Harper’s numbers.

I question Harper's numbers because they're not based on reality. He and his staff are almost literally the only people in the WORLD who are expecting the jets to cost $77M/unit. The Americans, the people that are actually BUILDING the things, are saying they're going to cost more. There is not a single credible American source out there confirming Harper's fantasy price. The Pentagon is saying $115-150 million, the US Government Accoutability Office is confirming that, third party defence experts are echoing the sentiment, European and other foreign governments are expressing frustration over, yet somehow you and Harper have your heads in the sand disagreeing with all of them. It's hilarious and your numbers are based on ----yes----nothing.

As for other nations, the expected totals to current partners:

Australia ~ 70

The Dutch ~80

United Kingdom~100

Turkey~100

Israel~100+

Dennmark~48

Norway~50

Italy~120

Canada~65

So we're about 1900 units short of your balogna estimate of 5000 units pushing the price down to $77M. To get to 5000 we need to have the equivalent of another US airforce buy into the project.

Other possible orders, with India (100+), Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Greece, could push the JSF numbers into the 4000-5000 range.

No it couldn't. All of those countries have annual defence expenditures similar to or even lower than Canada's. Those purchases would all be in the 10-70 units range. There aren't 30+ countries wealthy enough out there to buy that many. Regardless, they'll have a negligible impact on prices in the near future because Lockheed can't bank on orders 15-20 years from now driving the costs down. Those aren't sure things or even likely things.

Remember, the JSF will be built for decades, and even if the “possible orders” are not made for another 10-15 years, Canadian aerospace industries will be involved through the duration.

The amount of work Canada aerospace will get out of the contract has next to nothing to do with what the price of the aircraft will be.

I agree that Harper should have explained in greater detail how he came up with his number estimate. Are they based on future potential orders? Are the based on some calculation that involves the money earned by Canadian industry in building parts for the entire program, then subtracting it from the base per plane purchase cost? I dunno….

Winslow Wheeler, a US security expert and member of the Centre for Defence Intelligence, has been quoted as saying Harper's numbers are pure fantasy. Given the WIDE consensus of US government and military sources, this seems the most likely. NOBODY is agreeing with Harper's numbers outside of the party.

Regardless, as I’ve said numerous times, of cost, what are the Liberals/NDP’s plan on Hornet replacement?

In the end I agree with the purchase and I'm not knocking that. I'm just immensely disappointed in Harper for shamelessly and obviously lying to us about the costs.

[Guest Derek L]

I question Harper's numbers because they're not based on reality. He and his staff are almost literally the only people in the WORLD who are expecting the jets to cost $77M/unit. The Americans, the people that are actually BUILDING the things, are saying they're going to cost more. There is not a single credible American source out there confirming Harper's fantasy price. The Pentagon is saying $115-150 million, the US Government Accoutability Office is confirming that, third party defence experts are echoing the sentiment, European and other foreign governments are expressing frustration over, yet somehow you and Harper have your heads in the sand disagreeing with all of them. It's hilarious and your numbers are based on ----yes----nothing.

As for other nations, the expected totals to current partners:

So we're about 1900 units short of your balogna estimate of 5000 units pushing the price down to $77M. To get to 5000 we need to have the equivalent of another US airforce buy into the project.

No it couldn't. All of those countries have annual defence expenditures similar to or even lower than Canada's. Those purchases would all be in the 10-70 units range. There aren't 30+ countries wealthy enough out there to buy that many. Regardless, they'll have a negligible impact on prices in the near future because Lockheed can't bank on orders 15-20 years from now driving the costs down. Those aren't sure things or even likely things.

The amount of work Canada aerospace will get out of the contract has next to nothing to do with what the price of the aircraft will be.

Winslow Wheeler, a US security expert and member of the Centre for Defence Intelligence, has been quoted as saying Harper's numbers are pure fantasy. Given the WIDE consensus of US government and military sources, this seems the most likely. NOBODY is agreeing with Harper's numbers outside of the party.

In the end I agree with the purchase and I'm not knocking that. I'm just immensely disappointed in Harper for shamelessly and obviously lying to us about the costs.

First off, I've never stated what I feel the final cost will be. And as I've stated above, I don't know what the source/method of Harper's numbers are, nor do I know the source/method of his detractors. My bone of contention, is that the other parties have not offered a real alternative and they claim, that by a having another " competition” they will save money.

The results of said competition, if done honestly, will find the F-35 as the hands down winner. If the requirements are changed for political reasons it won’t.

As for final numbers of orders of the aircraft, again all are estimates. Why I feel these numbers will likely be on the high side of 3000 vs 5000 figure is that all the other nation’s air forces I’ve mentioned have aging fleets. In 10-15 years, JSF (outside of Russian or Chinese aircraft) will likely be the only western aircraft in production.

As for the amount of work Canadian aerospace will get from LockMart and the final costing of our deal in relation to that, unfortunately, it will. Canadian defense procurement has been plagued for decades (under both parties) with requirements for industrial, regional offsets(AKA Pork) and outside of soul source deals (C-17) this trend will likely continue.

[Moonbox]

As for final numbers of orders of the aircraft, again all are estimates. Why I feel these numbers will likely be on the high side of 3000 vs 5000 figure is that all the other nation’s air forces I’ve mentioned have aging fleets. In 10-15 years, JSF (outside of Russian or Chinese aircraft) will likely be the only western aircraft in production.

Like I said before, the markets really aren't there for another 2000 fighters. Canada, believe it or not, is the 13th largest defense spender in the world. You'd need another 30 countries with Canada's defense budget to get to 5000 fighters and those countries simply do not exist. 5000 fighters might be a possibility over the next 40 years where third world crapholes will buy updated versions of the outdated airframe (like the F-16E), but planes purchased 15-40 years from now will have NO impact on the price of the jet for Canadians in 2017.

As for the amount of work Canadian aerospace will get from LockMart and the final costing of our deal in relation to that, unfortunately, it will. Canadian defense procurement has been plagued for decades (under both parties) with requirements for industrial, regional offsets(AKA Pork) and outside of soul source deals (C-17) this trend will likely continue.

I'll repeat...the amount of work contracts we get in Canada will be negligible compared to the cost of the actual jets. It's REALLY negligible. Not just a little. The US isn't even releasing the software codes to Tier 1 partners, let alone Canada. +90% of the work is being done in the USA for the construction of the Canadian jets.

[RNG]

And how much content would the JSF or the F-22 or whatever alternatives there are would be Canadian?

A bunch of my ex-airforce buddies say the F-35 is the only one.

Edited April 28, 2011 by RNG

[wyly]

And how much content would the JSF or the F-22 or whatever alternatives there are would be Canadian?

A bunch of my ex-airforce buddies say the F-35 is the only one.

and right up to pearl harbour there admirals by the boat load who swore battleships were the only way to go...the japanese disagreed...

and what military toys the forces want and what they need are two very different things...

Edited April 28, 2011 by wyly

[RNG]

and right up to pearl harbour there admirals by the boat load who swore battleships were the only way to go...the japanese disagreed...

That is a really, really weak analogy. And so are you suggesting that we wait, and wait and wait. Because no matter what we do, at some point something better will come out. Bought a computer lately?

[wyly]

That is a really, really weak analogy. And so are you suggesting that we wait, and wait and wait. Because no matter what we do, at some point something better will come out. Bought a computer lately?

sorry it's an excellent analogy there are many other examples where the military bought the wrong equipment not anticipating all the situations they may encounter...the french "let's build a really expensive frontier fortress that the germans will never be able to get through"...

[Moonbox]

and right up to pearl harbour there admirals by the boat load who swore battleships were the only way to go...the japanese disagreed...

Right up to Pearl Harbour the Americans were building aircraft carriers and using them as their fleet flagships soooo...you're totally wrong.

and what military toys the forces want and what they need are two very different things...

You've been bleating the same tune for years now about this and about cruise missiles rendering fighters obsolete etc etc blah blah.

Missile technology was supposed to render fighters useless about 40 years ago but strangely that never happened and has continued to NOT happen.

[RNG]

sorry it's an excellent analogy there are many other examples where the military bought the wrong equipment not anticipating all the situations they may encounter...the french "let's build a really expensive frontier fortress that the germans will never be able to get through"...

And do you plan to address the rest of my post?

[Moonbox]

sorry it's an excellent analogy there are many other examples where the military bought the wrong equipment not anticipating all the situations they may encounter...the french "let's build a really expensive frontier fortress that the germans will never be able to get through"...

It's a really good example of bad logic and poorly used analogy. For however many instances you can give us of bad military planning we can give you several good examples.

The Maginot Line was a asinine defensive strategy implemented by an idiotic leadership who failed to learn their lesson after WWI. The German Blitzkrieg, however, was a brilliant strategy planned well in advance of the invasion and the money spent on the Panzer III was well worth it.

To suggest that investment in obsolete battleships somehow proves that investment in fighter technology is bad is infantile logic. That's like saying investing in computers is bad because typewriters went obsolete. Derp derp.

[Guest Derek L]

Like I said before, the markets really aren't there for another 2000 fighters. Canada, believe it or not, is the 13th largest defense spender in the world. You'd need another 30 countries with Canada's defense budget to get to 5000 fighters and those countries simply do not exist. 5000 fighters might be a possibility over the next 40 years where third world crapholes will buy updated versions of the outdated airframe (like the F-16E), but planes purchased 15-40 years from now will have NO impact on the price of the jet for Canadians in 2017.

Outside of the partner nations ~3100 orders, there still is a rather large potential market. Japan being one of the biggest markets of a none partner nation, with a requirement of ~350 aircraft to replace their legacy fleet. South Korea & Singapore have both have requirements of a 5th generation stealth aircraft, with a combined requirement of 150-200 aircraft. Add India and Taiwan, to the list of potential customers, and you’re over the 4000 mark. These countries all have the same requirements as us, they need replacements in the same time frame as us and they are all hardly third world crapholes.

I'll repeat...the amount of work contracts we get in Canada will be negligible compared to the cost of the actual jets. It's REALLY negligible. Not just a little. The US isn't even releasing the software codes to Tier 1 partners, let alone Canada. +90% of the work is being done in the USA for the construction of the Canadian jets.

Yes the final assembly will be done in Texas, but the manufacturing of components is being spread amongst the member nations. As I’ve mentioned prior, Pratt & Whitney Canada will be producing engine parts. More now, that the second GE engine has been canceled.

The source code debate is a straw men. The reason for the American refusal to hand it out to member nations (Turkey & United Kingdom) is to keep costs of maintence down amongst the fleets, with just one upgradeable code. In the past, (F-4 and F-16 as example) local modifications through standardization out the window. The objections of other countries are more a local defense lobby then military issue.

Building parts for a fleet of 3000-5000 aircraft, spread over decades will be more lucrative then a one time order 65 aircraft locally built or the equal amount of offsets.

Also it will avoided the feat or famine approach that has been used for years.