F-35 Purchase

[punked]

Now Mackay is saying it's an accounting issue?

Not enough facepalm.

It is an accounting issue. The AG did the accounting the way all other countries do it, the way business does it, and the way Auditors are taught to do it so there will be no book cooking in large programs of this type. While DND and the Conservatives did it the wrong way then called everyone who did the right way a lair and wouldn't show their books. So....

[Signals.Cpl]

It is an accounting issue. The AG did the accounting the way all other countries do it, the way business does it, and the way Auditors are taught to do it so there will be no book cooking in large programs of this type. While DND and the Conservatives did it the wrong way then called everyone who did the right way a lair and wouldn't show their books. So....

Can you provide proof? You make some strong accusations.

Please provide how the US, UK, France, Italy or Spain calculate the cost of say their Carriers. I don't think this has ever been an issue until now and if the bidding process was to be opened up the 11billion dollars will miraculously disappear from the discussion because it would already be budgeted.

[punked]

Can you provide proof? You make some strong accusations.

Please provide how the US, UK, France, Italy or Spain calculate the cost of say their Carriers. I don't think this has ever been an issue until now and if the bidding process was to be opened up the 11billion dollars will miraculously disappear from the discussion because it would already be budgeted.

Just look at how life cycle costs are calculated all major countries calculate them the way the AG. Why they do this as the AG report points out is the serious inflation comes from the operating costs not the actual purchasing costs. So if we don't include those but we buy these planes then we on the hook for those costs. It is the best and only way to keep program costs in line.

The biggest apparent commitment is a freezing of funding at C$ 9 billion procurement and C$ 7 billion for support, followed by a statement from Associate Minister of National Defence Fantino that they “will acquire the F-35 only if and when we can operate within that budget.” This is less of a concession than it seems. First, it reiterates stated policy. Second, it freezes only the purchase cost. Support costs are even more likely to see serious cost inflation, but are the easiest to falsely assume away in advance. If they double to C$ 14 billion in real costs, Canada would have no option but to pay. Finally, it offers no other fighter options, or even preparation to make another fighter option feasible. Canada’s DND will “continue to evaluate options,” but the C$ 16 billion is still described as an F-35 acquisition budget, not a fighter acquisition budget. Likewise, the program’s new coordinating Secretariat in Public Works Canada is the F-35 Secretariat, though the effect clearly shifts authority out of the Department of National Defence, and away from Minister for National Defence Peter Mackay.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

Just look at how life cycle costs are calculated all major countries calculate them the way the AG. Why they do this as the AG report points out is the serious inflation comes from the operating costs not the actual purchasing costs. So if we don't include those but we buy these planes then we on the hook for those costs. It is the best and only way to keep program costs in line.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/

Proof that all major countries do the "accounting" like our AG does. Not my job to prove YOUR argument.

[punked]

Proof that all major countries do the "accounting" like our AG does. Not my job to prove YOUR argument.

I posted a write up on how life cycle costs for large programs are calculated a few pages back. It is not my fault you didn't read it.

Here you go though this from airforce magazine explaining how the US estimates were came to. You notice operational costs are included in their estimates. Which airforce magazine points out which is a fine defense of the cost and what our own government should have done.

Take a deep breath, everybody. The trillion-dollar operation and maintenance cost everyone is hyperventilating about is hardly worth the paper it is printed on. It counts every possible cost to operate and modernize the F-35 during a 25-year production run, followed by a 30-year operational life. It represents a half-century’s worth of fuel, parts, upgrades, and even related construction costs.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/July%202011/0711edit.aspx

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

I posted a write up on how life cycle costs for large programs are calculated a few pages back. It is not my fault you didn't read it.

I did read that, I am asking for the proof that:

Just look at how life cycle costs are calculated all major countries calculate them the way the AG.

The evidence provided:

1)Does not include proof that All Major countries calculate like the AG

2)Does not apply to this case.

The "evidence" you provided talks about purchasing a new asset we, we are replacing an old one.

If you have no proof that other countries use the same accounting methods, please don't post it as Fact.

[punked]

I did read that, I am asking for the proof that:

The evidence provided:

1)Does not include proof that All Major countries calculate like the AG

2)Does not apply to this case.

The "evidence" you provided talks about purchasing a new asset we, we are replacing an old one.

If you have no proof that other countries use the same accounting methods, please don't post it as Fact.

Just posted it. Operational costs for programs are always included in program estimates that is why the Auditor General did the estimates this way he didn't just wake up one morning and say "I am going to make up a new way to do costing" that isn't what our AG does.

[Signals.Cpl]

Just posted it. Operational costs for programs are always included in program estimates that is why the Auditor General did the estimates this way he didn't just wake up one morning and say "I am going to make up a new way to do costing" that isn't what our AG does.

Did the AG account for the Pensions? You know the people that will work for 20 years with the Fighters and then retire, did he account for their pension, or dental care or health care. Did he account that many more support the F-35's then just those that are posted in those units? Or that some of the people he counted are responsible for multiple other aircraft?

Ultimately you make a statement, and Cant prove it. One website does not constitute proof when you inform us that every other major country does it that way. If they do, I would assume you should have no problem finding proof to back up your argument.

[punked]

Did the AG account for the Pensions? You know the people that will work for 20 years with the Fighters and then retire, did he account for their pension, or dental care or health care. Did he account that many more support the F-35's then just those that are posted in those units? Or that some of the people he counted are responsible for multiple other aircraft?

Ultimately you make a statement, and Cant prove it. One website does not constitute proof when you inform us that every other major country does it that way. If they do, I would assume you should have no problem finding proof to back up your argument.

What can I do. I keep posting citations and all you do is plug your ears and yell "LALALALALALALA" I can't hear you. You have yet to show one source for your argument all you can say is "the AG is a lair and the government rocks". Fact is our AG who was appointed by our government to keep them in line has pointed out the government did something wrong. That is all I need to know and yet I have gone on to show you time and time again how you are wrong and you refuse to accept any facts.

[Signals.Cpl]

What can I do. I keep posting citations and all you do is plug your ears and yell "LALALALALALALA" I can't hear you. You have yet to show one source for your argument all you can say is "the AG is a lair and the government rocks". Fact is our AG who was appointed by our government to keep them in line has pointed out the government did something wrong. That is all I need to know and yet I have gone on to show you time and time again how you are wrong and you refuse to accept any facts.

Show me a cost breakdown of how the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy or Spain purchase military equipment. You made that statement, you have to provide evidence.

[punked]

Show me a cost breakdown of how the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy or Spain purchase military equipment. You made that statement, you have to provide evidence.

I provided it now you can show me something.

[Signals.Cpl]

I provided it now you can show me something.

You avoid providing evidence like its the plague.

[punked]

You avoid providing evidence like its the plague.

Go back and read like you have never read before please prove me wrong and the AG wrong right now though I am the only out of the two of us who has posted to outside sources so......

[Signals.Cpl]

Go back and read like you have never read before please prove me wrong and the AG wrong right now though I am the only out of the two of us who has posted to outside sources so......

4.7 billion for DND personnel over the next 20 years, keep in mind the pilots make up a small % of the actual manpower needed to operate this aircraft.

4.8 billion for operating costs over the next 20 years

860 million for contingency, which is already accounted for under "Additional capital acquisition costs"

This makes up the extra roughly 10.43 billion dollars and then there is a 30million dollar difference in the budget for initial weapons.

So the crew make up 45% of the extra costs

Operating cost is roughly 46%

Contingency makes roughly 8% of the difference

There is 1% rounding error in my calculation as I rounded down to the nears percent.

http://www.oag-bvg.g...02_e_36466.html

[punked]

Here is your US acquisition report.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf

You will see Operation and Service costs included in their report.

[PIK]

Here is your US acquisition report.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf

You will see Operation and Service costs included in their report.

To bad they could not have used the F-35 to sink the ''ghost ship'' that would have showed the world.

[Guest Derek L]

Here is your US acquisition report.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf

You will see Operation and Service costs included in their report.

Since you’re all tuned up on military acquisitions and accounting methods of our allies, why is that ,in these below links, the Americans are paying $5.3 billion for 124 Super Hornets, well the Australians are paying $6.6 Billion for 24 Super Hornets?

USN

RAAF

[Guest Derek L]

Here is your US acquisition report.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf

You will see Operation and Service costs included in their report.

To add, from your link, did you see the unit costs of the aircraft? From page 61

F-35A (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) URF - $67.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $78.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $76.1 M (BY 2012)

I’ve highlighted both the “A” and “C” model since we’ll be purchasing the “A” with some aspects likely from the “C”

[punked]

Since you’re all tuned up on military acquisitions and accounting methods of our allies, why is that ,in these below links, the Americans are paying $5.3 billion for 124 Super Hornets, well the Australians are paying $6.6 Billion for 24 Super Hornets?

USN

RAAF

No clue but it looks to me Australia is getting hosed if that estimate is just for the price of the jets alone. 6.6 Billion for 24 Super Hornets? That 270 million per Super Hornet, that is almost twice the price of a F35 for a 4th generation fighter. That number has to be a mistake, maybe 660 million for 24 which would be in line with what the US is getting.

[cybercoma]

To add, from your link, did you see the unit costs of the aircraft? From page 61

F-35A (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) URF - $67.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $78.8 M (BY 2012)

F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $76.1 M (BY 2012)

I’ve highlighted both the “A” and “C” model since we’ll be purchasing the “A” with some aspects likely from the “C”

We'll be purchasing neither, as we'll need drag chutes for icy runaways amongst other modifications for Canadian purposes.

[YEGmann]

Here is your US acquisition report.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf

You will see Operation and Service costs included in their report.

I am affraid you mixed the problems.

The operating cost in this report is an equivalent of our maintenace cost, i.e. $6 bln, which are included in CF-35 procurement budget.

An equivalent of our operating cost at DND (salaries etc.), i.e., the $10 bln. in question, is nowhere in the report.

[Guest Derek L]

No clue but it looks to me Australia is getting hosed if that estimate is just for the price of the jets alone. 6.6 Billion for 24 Super Hornets? That 270 million per Super Hornet, that is almost twice the price of a F35 for a 4th generation fighter. That number has to be a mistake, maybe 660 million for 24 which would be in line with what the US is getting.

No, it's 6.6 billion.

Punked, I know the details of both Boeing deals………The American purchase appears the better bargain because they already have in place the required support infrastructure for the Super Hornet, and in said deal, this is a straight flyaway unit cost………The Americans don’t account for spares, training, lifecycle costs etc……..Just the Super Hornet right out of the St Louis plant.

Now the Australian deal, accounts for of the inherent costs that we’d have to also pay…….training, spares, maintenance etc…………..Clearly both deals demonstrate different accounting methods used on the same aircraft…………

[Guest Derek L]

We'll be purchasing neither, as we'll need drag chutes for icy runaways amongst other modifications for Canadian purposes.

Drag chutes are already available……………What you’re trying to refer to is the tail hook and modification to allow for probe and drogue refuelling……….Again both “issues” have been addressed numerous times……

[punked]

No, it's 6.6 billion.

Punked, I know the details of both Boeing deals………The American purchase appears the better bargain because they already have in place the required support infrastructure for the Super Hornet, and in said deal, this is a straight flyaway unit cost………The Americans don’t account for spares, training, lifecycle costs etc……..Just the Super Hornet right out of the St Louis plant.

Now the Australian deal, accounts for of the inherent costs that we’d have to also pay…….training, spares, maintenance etc…………..Clearly both deals demonstrate different accounting methods used on the same aircraft…………

Oh so we are comparing total life cycle costs Australia to just Unit cost costs the US? Yes that would make for different numbers WHICH IS WHAT THOSE WHOLE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT!

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Oh so we are comparing total life cycle costs Australia to just procurement costs the US? Yes that would make for different numbers WHICH IS WHAT THOSE WHOLE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT!

Yup, and from your link, the unit cost of the version we will be getting is ~75 million per copy…..

What’s 75 million times 65 (aircraft)?