F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

And the other maker of bad news competitor :

GD

[Guest Derek L]

And don't forget these turkeys:

Jack's place

[bush_cheney2004]

...What’s more telling, is if one looks at the trending for both from the last year……….One would think all the “negative news” would have taken it’s toll……One would think.

Boeing has more domestic offsets to sweeten the pot for Canada. Stealth? Who needs stealth?!

[bush_cheney2004]

And don't forget these turkeys:

Jack's place

The YF-23 was no slouch at the time.....Canada could build it! Call Jack in the afterlife.

Edited April 21, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Boeing has more domestic offsets to sweeten the pot for Canada. Stealth? Who needs stealth?!

But the GE F414 isn't made in Quebec.....

[Guest Derek L]

The YF-23 was no slouch at the time.....Canada could build it! Call Jack in the afterlife.

Perhaps, But they’re too busy with their partnership with Boeing flogging the Super Bug

[bush_cheney2004]

The Aussies are optioning half of their Super Bugs for Growler duty, which would continue in service as the FB-111 strike gap is filled by F-35. That's smart. Australia lives in a tougher neighbourhood than does Canada.

[YEGmann]

Nope. Those were the lies told by team B to up military spending.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

[Topaz]

You know, down the road to the future, I can see that the world is going to have to decide to blow each other off the map or put more energy into peace talks because the cost for war toys is getting way out of control. It seems so sad for countries to spend billions and trillions of $$ while there's people within their country going to bed hungry.

[Guest Derek L]

The Aussies are optioning half of their Super Bugs for Growler duty, which would continue in service as the FB-111 strike gap is filled by F-35. That's smart. Australia lives in a tougher neighbourhood than does Canada.

Though a prudent option until the F-35 is fully in service with the RAAF, after as such, a specific EW aircraft becomes a self licking ice cream cone when accompanying a stealth F-35 strike package….I would hazard an educated guess that it was more a reflection of Boeing’s (production shift) and the USN’s focus on replacing the remaining Prowlers prior to the Super Hornet line closing………..The Australians also took this approach with their Canberra class LHDs………Though not being equipped to support fixed winged aircraft, it was cheaper to leave the Ski Jump on the Spanish design then have it removed….

[bush_cheney2004]

.I would hazard an educated guess that it was more a reflection of Boeing’s (production shift) and the USN’s focus on replacing the remaining Prowlers prior to the Super Hornet line closing………

Could be, but all Growlers start life as F/A-18 /F Block II. The US only exports "lite" versions, not the real deal.

[Guest Derek L]

Could be, but all Growlers start life as F/A-18 /F Block II. The US only exports "lite" versions, not the real deal.

....and all 24 RAAF Super Bugs have guns in the nose.

[waldo]

The index i used was Global Militarization index , which measures militarization of a nation. which includes more than just military expenditures.

alright... I've just had a quick review of GMI and the organizations behind it. Of course, there's a lot behind the figure... along with a lot of scrutiny/criticism... that, in isolation, it's an equally questionable number. In any case, the GMI country ranking numbers (of 148 ranked countries), for the 3 countries under discussion (lower number implies greater militarization):

U.S. => 30 ; China => 83 ; Canada => 87

Canada is about as militarized as China then? If you put even a second of thought into it you'd realize how ludicrous such an assertion is. The way they've measured things is equally ludicrous. Comparing the number of doctors to the number of soldiers? WTH is the point of that?!

And again, they don't appear to be taking into account the difference between purchasing power and the actual cost of the military. As I said, a US rock bottom private makes about 12 times as much as a Chinese private. Therefore, the US has to spend 12 times as much just to remain even with China in those terms.

and I was not the one to bring forward the GMI... and I was the one to speak to scrutiny/criticism of the GMI. But since it was mentioned, and with the discussion emphasis on China, I most certainly wasn't going to let the reference being made go without pointing out exactly where the U.S., Canada... and China position rank within the GMI.

perhaps you should actually read in context sometime, hey?

[waldo]

oh my! When the Canadian F-35 production ready "sweet spot"... isn't so... sweet, after all!

Speculation from Mr Puglise (and friends)?

I have no interest in your buzzword bingo pursuit... which, apparently, has you simply adding your own "speculation" into the fray. In spite of your buzzword bingo distraction, I note you had nothing at all to say about the article's emphasis that isn't your so-called speculation; i.e., the ever shifting, ever extending, "sweet spot"... at least 2021! At least! It is also noteworthy that your own self-serving speculation, from that competing U.S. perspective, presumes upon no F-35 competing ventures for those ever diminishing and ever under scrutiny U.S. military dollars... notwithstanding you're absolutely banking on, "on time, under budget"... by the by, how's that been working out so far, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

I have no interest in your buzzword bingo pursuit... which, apparently, has you simply adding your own "speculation" into the fray. In spite of your buzzword bingo distraction, I note you had nothing at all to say about the article's emphasis that isn't your so-called speculation; i.e., the ever shifting, ever extending, "sweet spot"... at least 2021! At least! It is also noteworthy that your own self-serving speculation, from that competing U.S. perspective, presumes upon no F-35 competing ventures for those ever diminishing and ever under scrutiny U.S. military dollars... notwithstanding you're absolutely banking on, "on time, under budget"... by the by, how's that been working out so far, hey?

So your speculation, based on a commentary in an editorial piece full of errors, is to be taken as scripture? Hey?

Didn’t we have this discussion, regarding Canada not having the entire F-35 order in service until the ~2023 timeframe, already?

[Guest Derek L]

I have no interest in your buzzword bingo pursuit... which, apparently, has you simply adding your own "speculation" into the fray. In spite of your buzzword bingo distraction, I note you had nothing at all to say about the article's emphasis that isn't your so-called speculation; i.e., the ever shifting, ever extending, "sweet spot"... at least 2021! At least! It is also noteworthy that your own self-serving speculation, from that competing U.S. perspective, presumes upon no F-35 competing ventures for those ever diminishing and ever under scrutiny U.S. military dollars... notwithstanding you're absolutely banking on, "on time, under budget"... by the by, how's that been working out so far, hey?

To add, I noticed you skipped over this question:

And what would be the result if we chose an aircraft no longer in production later this decade?

Hey?

[Guest Derek L]

With the aide of Google-fu, I’ve found the Defence News article cherry picked by Mr Puglise:

Pentagon Confident In F-35 Buy Schedule

Odd that he left these portions out of his "blog":

The U.S. Defense Department believes the military services will be able to purchase large quantities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter late in the decade, despite competing modernization priorities and a relatively flat Pentagon budget.

Kinda changes the tone of his source, but let's dig deeper:

But there are serious concerns within the Air Force and Navy about whether they will be able to afford the number of aircraft projected to be bought later this decade.

“We worked very closely with all the services, and particularly the programming and budgeting staffs of the services, to ensure that our program fits within their overall total obligation authority for the service in those years,” Air Force Maj. Gen. John Thompson, the F-35 deputy program executive officer, said in a March 30 briefing with a group of reporters in Arlington, Va.

Didn't mention that part....

In February 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress he wasn’t sure the services would be able to afford all of the modernization programs envisioned in the 2020s.

“We continue to be concerned about affordability in the long term of the Joint Strike Fighter,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at a March 8 conference sponsored by McAleese & Associates and Credit Suisse.

So these guys say this, well planing this:

DoD now plans to fully ramp up production of Marine Corps and Navy F-35s at a pace of 50 jets per year in 2018, according to DoD’s recently updated selected acquisition report for the program. Last year’s report projected 50-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

Program officials are expecting the Navy and Marine Corps jets to be evenly split at 25.

Air Force production is expected to hit 60 jets in 2018 and peak at 80 jets in 2021. Last year’s report projected 80-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

“As we got closer out to the end of the [five-year future years defense plan], based on our analysis of Lockheed Martin’s capabilities and based on the production desires of the services and partners, we elected to go into a gradual production ramp,” Thompson said.

The deputy program manager expressed optimism that the Air Force could reach that 80-aircraft-per year goal. Those numbers might have to be tweaked to accommodate international purchases, Thompson noted.

International queue jumping........

But why didn't he mention this:

The estimated cost per jet varies depending on a multitude of factors, including whether already spent development costs are included.

Using 2012 dollar values, the program office projects the Air Force version of the jet, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million.

The carrier version’s recurring flyaway cost is projected at $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version at $106 million, also using 2012 dollar values.

The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet.

What's the US-Canada exchange rate today?

And LockMart's sunny price estimate:

Despite the cost increases, Lockheed said the F-35’s cost will be on par with the F-16, one of the combat jets it is designed to replace. The company believes the Air Force version of the F-35 will cost closer to $70 million per aircraft.

And not a mention in Mr Puglise's blog about the expected costs demonstrated in the very article he quoted..........

[waldo]

To add, I noticed you skipped over this question:

And what would be the result if we chose an aircraft no longer in production later this decade?

I can't be bothered with your continued lack of specificity... what/when??? By the by, I seem to recall several references to delaying production mothballing... or firing it up again... when it conveniently suits your purposes - how self-serving, hey?

[waldo]

Odd that he left these portions out of his "blog":

Kinda changes the tone of his source, but let's dig deeper:

no - your quoted portions were the article's lead; i.e., the premise to which the rest of the article brings scrutiny/discussion against/forward.

But there are serious concerns within the Air Force and Navy about whether they will be able to afford the number of aircraft projected to be bought later this decade.

yes, you are correct in re-quoting that... David Pugliese's (apparent) 'DefenseNews' referenced article specifically states those words. Along with these quotes, which you quite conveniently downplay:

In February 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress he

wasn’t sure the services would be able to afford all of the modernization programs envisioned in the 2020s

.

“We continue to be

concerned about affordability in the long term of the Joint Strike Fighter

,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at a March 8 conference sponsored by McAleese & Associates and Credit Suisse.

you are most willing to accept the quoted delivery schedule statements from the, 'Air Force's F-35 deputy program executive officer'... you know, that program so maligned for being, "overdue, over-budget and over-hyped"... ya, that one!

But why didn't he mention this:

The estimated cost per jet varies depending on a multitude of factors, including whether already spent development costs are included.

Using 2012 dollar values, the program office projects the Air Force version of the jet, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers,

to cost $78.7 million.

The carrier version’s recurring flyaway cost is projected at $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version at $106 million, also using 2012 dollar values.

I expect because just a few blog posts earlier, Pugliese had much to write about F-35 costs, countering those very numbers you (and Harper Conservatives) so want to continue to fallaciously trumpet...

New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35.

The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011

. The Canadian government continues to quote a figure of $75 million per F-35A. This figure is

the “unit recurring flyaway cost” (URFC) of the aircraft. However, the URFC only represents a component of the full cost Canada will pay to acquire this aircraft. The price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35A also includes additional items such as ancillary equipment (e.g. fuel tanks, weapon pylons, targeting pods), training and support equipment, tech data, publications, contractor services, initial spares, and facility construction.

Nevertheless, it is useful to ascertain how reasonable is the government’s $75 million dollar figure. The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines):

2016 – $93.38

2017 – $91.43

2018 – $83.13

2019 – $83.95

2020 – $87.36

2021 – $95.16

2022 – $87.14

2023 – $88.08

Clearly, the government continues to understate the URFC.

The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet.

and from that same, just released, U.S. Pentagon Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), dated Dec. 31, 2011:

The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) is a reflection of the cost Canada would pay.

In this SAR it is $137.41 for 2012. Last year it was $132.81

. While this figure is an average of the 3 variants, it provides a useful benchmark.

And not a mention in Mr Puglise's blog about the expected costs demonstrated in the very article he quoted..........

as I said, as I quoted from above, Pugliese had much to say about F-35 costs in a blog entry just a few earlier from the one reference linked... however, I note most of that same blog entry is about the F-35 program cost-overruns. We could go there, if you'd like - your choice.

[waldo]

re: your Chinese masters

as I say, talk to the Harper hand... apparently, the recent days meeting was just about... "cultural exchanges"!

[DogOnPorch]

as I say, talk to the Harper hand... apparently, the recent days meeting was just about... "cultural exchanges"!

You just can't get it through your stupid head that I did not vote for your religious wack-job buddy, Harper.

[Army Guy]

You know, down the road to the future, I can see that the world is going to have to decide to blow each other off the map or put more energy into peace talks because the cost for war toys is getting way out of control. It seems so sad for countries to spend billions and trillions of $$ while there's people within their country going to bed hungry.

Really , Man has been at this for thousands of years and still can not resolve anything without violence...do you think a few hungry kids are going to make a difference, shit you can't turn on a channel now with out seeing it for a full 30 seconds images of starving kids desparate for any food...does it make a difference in your life...have you heard anyone say thats it, screw it i

m giving up violence so that kids can grow up with out knowing hunger....good luck with that...Man is man and will not be changing his ways anytime soon....until we blow each other off the planet we will continue develope tools for war, until we get it right ...

[waldo]

--

Edited April 21, 2012 by waldo

[Army Guy]

Not sure where the confusion lies, but just so that i'm tracking Derek both Lockmart and US DOD pentagon sources have quote that the Fly away costs are between 70 and 78.5 mil a copy...Just one question if we , when i say we i mean the government , Minister of National Defence, if they were to get a quote where would they go, i'm think Lockmark and perhaps confirming that info with US DoD offices....And just to confirm these numbers are current as of when the article says 2012 does it not

Then Waldo were are you getting your numbers, as there is no source...and when are they dated, as i've seen a couple dates as far back as 2011...it is only adding to the confusion, on my part anyway. and i think while we are here and this post is already 100 pages long why not discuss cost over runs...and how are they reflected in everyones quotes...

Edited April 21, 2012 by Army Guy

[Guest Derek L]

I can't be bothered with your continued lack of specificity... what/when??? By the by, I seem to recall several references to delaying production mothballing... or firing it up again... when it conveniently suits your purposes - how self-serving, hey?

Quite simply, one of the other often mentioned (4th Generation) aircraft, that will all see the production lines close in the next 2-3 years.