F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

I'll ask again:

Now how about that little math problem………..We can see the Norwegian deal, and contrast with the proposed Canadian deal and the numbers seem to align……..So what’s the problem? Other then a known reality running counter to your narrative.....

since you're so fixated on... Norway... over actually addressing the plethora of JSFail criticism raining down, I'll (also) ask again... about you playing with numbers, about the Norway preconditions.

but hey now, about you trumpeting Norway, how about a lil' refresher, hey? You playing with numbers again?

Norwegian government

: Norwegian authorities have calculated

two prices

for aircraft purchase. Purchase price

and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years

.

and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping' $40 Billion...

$15 Billion more

than the original estimate -

for only 52 F-35s

over only a

30 year life-cycle

.

Man, did they ever blow their initial estimate! Sure hope they hold whoever is responsible for the screw up accountable.

now that we've dispensed with the imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", my impression is that Canada isn't privy to any special pricing unique/distinct from other JSF partners (I stand to be corrected)... in this Norwegian example, strictly looking at acquisition costs, the original Norwegian cost estimate was $12 Billion for only 52 F-35... and somehow... Canada's F-35 acquisition cost for 65 F-35s was quoted by Harper Conservatives at only $9 Billion. Norway: $12 Billion for 52 F-35s... Canada: $9 Billion for 65 F-35s. Is there a problem here?

by the way, no comments on the hardball preconditions Norway played in regards the Norwegian developed JSM missile integration into the JSFail F-35... a completely new F-35 development pursuit.

[Guest Derek L]

since you're so fixated on... Norway... over actually addressing the plethora of JSFail criticism raining down, I'll (also) ask again... about you playing with numbers, about the Norway preconditions.

So that's a no on the math problem?

[waldo]

how telling is it to read your juvenile taunts over Norway purchasing a couple of jets... while you refuse to touch the U.S. GAO's overwhelming criticism of JSFail as just presented to you?

Why would I focus on it? Cleary actions speak louder then words, and the predictions of the programs death are exaggerated……….

focus on it? Buddy, you won't touch it with the proverbial '10 foot pole'. The latest GAO report, common to all of the previous GAO JSFail F-35 reports, is a scathing indictment of JSFail and it's rabid supporters... that would be you!

[Guest Derek L]

So that's a no on the math problem?

To add from their Government:

Norway orders first F-35; secures JSM integration support

The overall cost of the procurement phase of the project is estimated at NOK 60 billion/USD 10 billion (2012 value) in real terms.

One more time:

10 billion / 50 aircraft = ?

15 billion / 65 aircraft = ?

[cybercoma]

Maybe, maybe not.....What do you think?

Alright, I'll try to be fair with the discussion.

You said:

They have no social safety net because of it!

I can't really stand the majority of the discussion on this topic because I don't particularly care about the military hardware itself, but the politics behind the procurement and the administration of federal funds. Having said that, I haven't been paying very close attention to what was going on before this.

The assumption I made about your comment there above is that it was sarcastic. You were saying that Norway would be broke due to buying the F-35s, mocking I believe MLW poster waldo.

I assumed that waldo has argued at some point that we can't really afford these jets without tapping into money that could go towards other social projects. (As an aside, it is convenient that the government always seems to manage to find several billions of dollars for things when they need it, but they can never seem to scrape together money for things like a childcare program or university subsidies)

My comment was meant to say that you can't really compare the fiscal policy of Norway to Canada because they have a much steeper progressive tax structure. They are further down the socialist side of the economic spectrum than Canada, although they're still a mixed economy. I asked if you wanted to adopt their taxation policy because that's the only way comparing their choice between guns and butter, and Canada's choice between guns and butter makes sense to me. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

[Guest Derek L]

focus on it? Buddy, you won't touch it with the proverbial '10 foot pole'. The latest GAO report, common to all of the previous GAO JSFail F-35 reports, is a scathing indictment of JSFail and it's rabid supporters... that would be you!

Yet Norway signed the deal.....Despite your doom and gloom

Again for shits and giggles:

10 billion / 50 aircraft = ?

15 billion / 65 aircraft = ?

[Guest Derek L]

Alright, I'll try to be fair with the discussion.

You said:

I can't really stand the majority of the discussion on this topic because I don't particularly care about the military hardware itself, but the politics behind the procurement and the administration of federal funds. Having said that, I haven't been paying very close attention to what was going on before this.

The assumption I made about your comment there above is that it was sarcastic. You were saying that Norway would be broke due to buying the F-35s, mocking I believe MLW poster waldo.

I assumed that waldo has argued at some point that we can't really afford these jets without tapping into money that could go towards other social projects. (As an aside, it is convenient that the government always seems to manage to find several billions of dollars for things when they need it, but they can never seem to scrape together money for things like a childcare program or university subsidies)

My comment was meant to say that you can't really compare the fiscal policy of Norway to Canada because they have a much steeper progressive tax structure. They are further down the socialist side of the economic spectrum than Canada, although they're still a mixed economy. I asked if you wanted to adopt their taxation policy because that's the only way comparing their choice between guns and butter, and Canada's choice between guns and butter makes sense to me. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

Ahh But my comparison between Canada and Norway ended at the proposed and actual deals signed by both Governments to purchase the F-35.…….Aside from that……..Been to (Northern) Norway once, it’s a nice place…….reminds me of the Alaskan panhandle.

[cybercoma]

Ahh But my comparison between Canada and Norway ended at the proposed and actual deals signed by both Governments to purchase the F-35.…….Aside from that……..Been to (Northern) Norway once, it’s a nice place…….reminds me of the Alaskan panhandle.

You can't talk about the deals without talking about the countries' fiscal capacities.

[waldo]

Yet Norway signed the deal.....Despite your doom and gloom

Norway's preconditions are quite a testament to just how desperate Lockheed Martin is, hey?

doom & gloom? Really... quite remarkable for you to characterize the U.S. GAO report as... "doom & gloom".

Again for shits and giggles:

10 billion / 50 aircraft = ?

you simply refuse to read

Norwegian government

: Norwegian authorities have calculated

two prices

for aircraft purchase. Purchase price

and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years

.

and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping'

$40 Billion

...

$15 Billion more

than the original estimate -

for only 52 F-35s

over only a

30 year life-cycle

.

[Guest Derek L]

You can't talk about the deals without talking about the countries' fiscal capacities.

Why? Does Lockheed care what the personal income tax rates or the level of healthcare a customer has?

[cybercoma]

Why? Does Lockheed care what the personal income tax rates or the level of healthcare a customer has?

No, but the governments buying the things damn well should.

[Guest Derek L]

Norway's preconditions are quite a testament to just how desperate Lockheed Martin is, hey?

doom & gloom? Really... quite remarkable for you to characterize the U.S. GAO report as... "doom & gloom".

you simply refuse to read

From a last year newspaper versus a release from the other day?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzFmCCKQHns

[waldo]

Why? Does Lockheed care what the personal income tax rates or the level of healthcare a customer has?

ah yes... right from the 'Derek L' distraction playbook... anything to avoid actually addressing the most legitimate U.S. GAO report criticism of the JSFail F-35 program!

[Guest Derek L]

No, but the governments buying the things damn well should.

But you concede that those are outside the purview of Lockheed and each separate nation’s desire to purchase the F-35.……….You’re debating whether we should purchase equipment for the military versus “butter”, though a valid debate, separate from a transaction with an Aerospace company………..Now if the Harper Governments “estimates” align with the Norwegian purchase price, what’s the issue with the actual purchase/deal/contract?

[waldo]

Again for shits and giggles:

costs are the absolute last thing you care anything about... to you, cost is an after-thought - you of the 'whatever it costs... it costs' camp.

if you really want to play the costs game, let's see you start with all the year-over-year, billion dollar cost overruns for JSFail. Ya, let's talk costs, hey?

what's that Canadian cost going to be, what's any countries cost going to be, when all the shifting out of orders has to actually be addressed? What's that affect on cost going to be, hey?

Edited June 17, 2012 by waldo

[cybercoma]

But you concede that those are outside the purview of Lockheed and each separate nation’s desire to purchase the F-35.……….You’re debating whether we should purchase equipment for the military versus “butter”, though a valid debate, separate from a transaction with an Aerospace company………..Now if the Harper Governments “estimates” align with the Norwegian purchase price, what’s the issue with the actual purchase/deal/contract?

How is that separate from the debate? That's like saying it doesn't matter how much money you have if you want to buy something. The country's fiscal capacity is critical to the deal that country makes with the contractors. The price that Lockhead charges for the equipment is directly related to our ability to pay and the choices we have to make with our fiscal capacity.

[cybercoma]

costs are the absolute last thing you care anything about... to you, cost is an after-thought - you of the 'whatever it costs... it costs' camp.

if you really want to play the costs game, let's see you start with all the year-over-year, billion dollar cost overruns for JSFail. Ya, let's talk costs, hey?

Yet he would never say "whatever it costs, it costs" when it comes to things like the environment, gun control, post-secondary education, the arts, etc. It's bizarre.

[Guest Derek L]

costs are the absolute last thing you care anything about... to you, cost is an after-thought - you of the 'whatever it costs... it costs' camp.

if you really want to play the costs game, let's see you start with all the year-over-year, billion dollar cost overruns for JSFail. Ya, let's talk costs, hey?

That’s only partially true……..I do care how costs apply to political optics (As do those on the other side of the coin) and if when the CPC delivers on the F-35 with their budgeted sum, optically speaking, it will devalue the cries of the bedwetters Opposition.

If it were up to me alone mind you, I’d sign the deal (Yesterday) with a $15 billion cancellation fee….

Edited June 17, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

costs are the absolute last thing you care anything about... to you, cost is an after-thought - you of the 'whatever it costs... it costs' camp.

if you really want to play the costs game, let's see you start with all the year-over-year, billion dollar cost overruns for JSFail. Ya, let's talk costs, hey?

what's that Canadian cost going to be, what's any countries cost going to be, when all the shifting out of orders has to actually be addressed? What's that affect on cost going to be, hey?

That’s only partially true……..I do care how costs apply to political optics (As do those on the other side of the coin) and if when the CPC delivers on the F-35 with their budgeted sum, optically speaking, it will devalue the cries of the bedwetters Opposition.

ya, ya, Derek L... let's talk costs... real costs, hey?

... we have

the most recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report

, released in recent days... a few choice gems:

The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline. Full rate production is now planned for 2019, a delay of 6 years from the 2007 baseline. Unit costs per aircraft have doubled since start of development in 2001. Critical dates for delivering warfighter requirements remain unsettled because of program uncertainties.

Overall performance in 2011 was mixed as the program achieved 6 of 11 important objectives. Developmental flight testing gained momentum and is now about 21 percent complete with the most challenging tasks still ahead. Performance of the short takeoff and vertical landing variant improved this year and its “probation” period to fix deficiencies was ended after 1 year with several fixes temporary and untested. Developing and integrating the more than 24 million lines of software code continues to be of concern. Late software releases and concurrent work on multiple software blocks have delayed testing and training. Development of critical mission systems providing core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky

Full rate production is now planned for 2019, a delay of 6 years from the 2007 baseline [emphasis added]. Unit costs per aircraft have doubled since start of development in 2001. Critical dates for delivering warfighter requirements remain unsettled because of program uncertainties. While the total number of aircraft DOD plans to buy has not changed, it has for 3 straight years reduced near-term procurement quantities, deferring aircraft and costs to future years. Since 2002, the total quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Affordability is a key challenge.

Development of critical mission systems providing core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky. To date, only 4 percent of the mission systems required for full capability have been verified. Deficiencies with the helmet mounted display, integral to mission systems functionality and concepts of operation, are most problematic. The autonomic logistics information system, integral technology for improving aircraft availability and lowering support costs, is not fully developed

Most of the instability in the program has been and continues to be the result of highly concurrent development, testing, and production activities. Cost overruns on the first four annual procurement contracts total more than $1 billion and aircraft deliveries are on average more than 1 year late…The manufacturing process is still absorbing higher than expected number of engineering changes resulting from flight testing, changes which are expected to persist at elevated levels into 2019, making it difficult to achieve efficient production rates. More design and manufacturing changes are expected as testing continues, bringing risks for more contract overruns and concurrency costs

[Guest Derek L]

How is that separate from the debate? That's like saying it doesn't matter how much money you have if you want to buy something. The country's fiscal capacity is critical to the deal that country makes with the contractors. The price that Lockhead charges for the equipment is directly related to our ability to pay and the choices we have to make with our fiscal capacity.

But it’s not though……..You just stated you care about “process” and not the actual hardware……….The Norwegians are paying 10 billion for 50 F-35s, the Australians paid 6.6 billion for 24 Super Hornets……. Modern Fighters are expensive………..Now if you don’t wish to see the purchased, or feel we can’t afford modern fighters (Or a military in general), clearly that is a separate topic and a valid, philosophical, debate (That I’d also partake in)

[Guest Derek L]

ya, ya, Derek L... let's talk costs... real costs, hey?

Sheesh.....Sure glad we're not paying for the developmental cost like the US and UK

[waldo]

Sheesh.....Sure glad we're not paying for the developmental cost like the US and UK

are you saying none of the additional program costs will impact production costs... is that what you're saying? Really?

[Guest Derek L]

are you saying none of the additional program costs will impact production costs... is that what you're saying? Really?

Based on these results:

10 billion / 50 aircraft = ?

15 billion / 65 aircraft = ?

[waldo]

hey Derek L, about your much touted/hyped 2 airplane purchase by Norway... the Norway preconditions... and just how desperate Lockheed Martin, the U.S. DoD and Pentagon are:

The news? Norway's government has just authorized the purchase of — wait for it — two aircraft.

But Norway's big announcement comes just a day after a harsh report about the F-35 from the U.S.' own Government Accountability Office (GAO).

But, as critics have been pointing out, the program isn't on track and the GAO is telling Congress the same thing.

We've started to wonder how the F-35 program is still attracting buyers. Norway's recent order could shed some light:

"The decision to move forward was reached following an extended dialogue with the US Department of Defense aimed at securing opportunities for Norwegian industry," said the country's ministry of defense.

That suggests the only way the U.S. can secure global partnerships is to make sure partner nations are getting a lot out of the program.

So what is Norway scoring?

The Pentagon has agreed to integrate a big Norwegian missile system into the F-35.

Norway has developed a Joint Strike Missile (JSM) which it hopes friendly foreign militaries will invest in. But Norway's partner nations were reluctant to support the JSM unless it could be integrated into the aircraft that everyone supposedly wants to fly — the F-35.

So it looks like the Norwegian missile became the perfect bargaining chip. If the U.S. wanted to see Norway to put down money on the F-35, then the Pentagon had to support the JSM and integrate it into the strike fighter program.

It's a telling example of you scratch our back, we scratch yours — but can the U.S. afford to do this for every time it makes an F-35 sale? Maybe it can.

But getting allies invested in the program by making foreign weapon integration deals could come at the cost of making the F-35's future more unstable.

The GAO report does point out: "Most of the instability in the program has been and continues to be the result of highly concurrent development, testing, and production activities" — meaning there are just too many things happening at the same time.

[waldo]

Based on these results:

c'mon... don't be so distracting!

ah yes... right from the 'Derek L' distraction playbook... anything to avoid actually addressing the most legitimate U.S. GAO report criticism of the JSFail F-35 program!