F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

I never miss a chance to play 'new' B-36 footage.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes it is a major job. I did it once only to find the NEW $%#&*$ core leaked. You might imagine even USMC members would have been offended by the language. Off the damn dash came AGAIN.

Funny, but my new core leaked too. Damndest thing. I didn't mind the smell of antifreeze but it would fog up the windows really bad !

[DogOnPorch]

Funny, but my new core leaked too. Damndest thing. I didn't mind the smell of antifreeze but it would fog up the windows really bad !

Oh yeah...such a sweet smell that glycol.

You want funny? It's -40C or worse and the dead of night...I'm out working on the fuse box in the minivan for some unholy reason. I place the trouble light on the dash and get busy...a few moments later, I hear that mournful sound of glass cracking from driver to passenger side. More swearing...$500 dollar windshield on those SOBs.

[Wilber]

Oh yeah...such a sweet smell that glycol.

You want funny? It's -40C or worse and the dead of night...I'm out working on the fuse box in the minivan for some unholy reason. I place the trouble light on the dash and get busy...a few moments later, I hear that mournful sound of glass cracking from driver to passenger side. More swearing...$500 dollar windshield on those SOBs.

Early B747's also had cold weather windshield problems. When I was wrenching on them in Edmonton during the seventies, they were a common problem. -30 and you hear the intercom horn in the wheel well. You answer and someone says, you better get up here, we turned on the window heat and one of the windshields delaminated. Got so bad that we built a rig for our big Hyster box that fit the contour of the nose section, a special jack to sling the windshield, at tent and fitting to connect a long hose to a Herman Nelson heater. We would change the window, put speed tape over the aerodynamic sealer, send the A/C off to HNL where it would sit in the sun for a while and the sealant would cure. When it got back to YEG, we would pull the tape off and voila, good as new.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

Early B747's also had cold weather windshield problems. When I was wrenching on them in Edmonton during the seventies, they were a common problem. -30 and you hear the intercom horn in the wheel well. You answer and someone says, you better get up here, we turned on the window heat and one of the windshields delaminated. Got so bad that we built a rig for our big Hyster box that fit the contour of the nose section, a special jack to sling the windshield, at tent and fitting to connect a long hose to a Herman Nelson heater. We would change the window, put speed tape over the aerodynamic sealer, send the A/C off to HNL where it would sit in the sun for a while and the sealant would cure. When it got back to YEG, we would pull the tape off and voila, good as new.

Heh..cool. I could have used you guys that night. Sending the minivan to Hawaii....hmmmmm....not a bad idea...but, I think I'll go first before that #%$#@ hunk of 20th century technology.

[Guest Derek L]

The various cold weather/low flash mixes started out with B-36 SAC flights to Alaska during the dead of winter, I think. Hard to keep those early jet engines burning in the super cold conditions on the ground let alone at altitude. The prop engines would start...but not the jet pods. They tried all sorts of things like recycling the intake air via blowers or keeping the jet engines a running all night. I bet those were hairy times as ground crew.

I can only imagine, Jet fuel/Kerosene is more viscous than diesel, as such, not so great in the cold…………One of the reasons I’m forced to laugh when many suggest that we should “just develop the Canadian Arctic further”………It’s flipping hard on man and machine to work up there, thusly to operate machines in such cold temperatures, they have to further increase the use of fuel additives and biocides to the fuel itself, fuel system and the fuel storage/piping to help inhibit the negative attributes of cold temperature on thicker liquids……….But it’s a vicious circle, since the more crap you put into the fuel, the greater the potential of gumming up moving parts……….

[Guest Derek L]

Oh yeah...such a sweet smell that glycol.

You want funny? It's -40C or worse and the dead of night...I'm out working on the fuse box in the minivan for some unholy reason. I place the trouble light on the dash and get busy...a few moments later, I hear that mournful sound of glass cracking from driver to passenger side. More swearing...$500 dollar windshield on those SOBs.

Try that during a North Atlantic storm

[Wilber]

Before we got our own diesel pump, we used Jet A in our tugs and other diesel ground equipment in YEG. One of the Esso fueling trucks had a second automotive hose and nozzle just for fueling our ground equipment.

[DogOnPorch]

Try that during a North Atlantic storm

Indeed. Dangerous stuff.

I can only imagine, Jet fuel/Kerosene is more viscous than diesel, as such, not so great in the cold…………One of the reasons I’m forced to laugh when many suggest that we should “just develop the Canadian Arctic further”………It’s flipping hard on man and machine to work up there, thusly to operate machines in such cold temperatures, they have to further increase the use of fuel additives and biocides to the fuel itself, fuel system and the fuel storage/piping to help inhibit the negative attributes of cold temperature on thicker liquids……….But it’s a vicious circle, since the more crap you put into the fuel, the greater the potential of gumming up moving parts……….

Yes it is certainly more than jet engines and fuel that suffer in the cold. Icing in its various forms is still the number one danger for all pilots. Speaking of B-36s, it was simple icing of the mixture intakes on one of those giants that caused a broken arrow crash in British Columbia in 1950. It doesn't take much.

Edited December 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Before we got our own diesel pump, we used Jet A in our tugs and other diesel ground equipment in YEG. One of the Esso fueling trucks had a second automotive hose and nozzle just for fueling our ground equipment.

The US Army has been doing likewise……….During the second Persian Excursion, it wouldn’t have been an uncommon sight to see a fuel bowser refuelling an Abrams, Kiowa, Hummer and a 5 ton truck one after another………JP-8 does make sense from a military logistical point of view………As does the differing flash points between Jet Fuel/Diesel versus gasoline/Avgas…………It’s very likely that the predominate usage of JP-5, as opposed to Avgas, saved and/’or lessoned the damage to the USS Forrestal, USS Enterprise and USS Nimitz during their major flight deck “events”.

[cybercoma]

Andrew Coyne on why it's not about the fighter jets and never has been.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/andrew-coyne-the-federal-governments-continuing-spin-on-f-35-costs-is-inexcusable/

The issue is that the government absolutely refuses to come clean and outline exactly what the the fighter jets will cost Canadians. They are required to give this information to parliament and are still spinning it.

[Wilber]

Fighter jets shmyter jets, the're jet powered fighters not fighter powered jets. We don't say truck diesels, cycle motors, train electrics, car hybrids or airliner jets. The're jet fighters for cripes sake.

[Guest Derek L]

Andrew Coyne on why it's not about the fighter jets and never has been.

http://fullcomment.n...is-inexcusable/

The issue is that the government absolutely refuses to come clean and outline exactly what the the fighter jets will cost Canadians. They are required to give this information to parliament and are still spinning it.

This passage is telling:

Now, this increase in the reported price does not mean the cost of the planes has “skyrocketed” or “ballooned” or whatever other word you might have read. I mean, it has — from $75-million per plane to $88-million, with further increases likely to follow. But acquisition costs are only a fraction of the total: just $9-billion, a figure that has not changed even after this 20% increase in unit price. The rest, almost all of it, is for sustainment and operations.

The increase in the reported price, then, does not so much reflect movements in the actual costs of the plane, as it does the government’s willingness to fess up to them. But, as I say, they have not really done so even now.

It’s a mater of perspective when calculating costs, when said costs include spending that is already “sunk” if we’re operating fighters…….So the question becomes should we operate fighters? Others suggest purchasing other “cheaper aircraft”, when they clearly don’t understand those same “hidden cost increases” would effect other aircraft also…………

With the new estimates out to 42 years and 45 billion for 65 F-35s one get’s a total of ~693 million per F-35.………If one does the same calculation to the Australian purchase of 24 Super Hornets (with 10 years support) for ~7 billion, then double said figure to equal the Tories first reported figure based on 20 years , add the roughly 10% increase in inflation since said deal was signed, and calculate said purchase price over 65 airframes instead of 24, then add all the “sunk” (Harper’s “hidden costs”) costs to operating a fighter fleet, the total will approach 50-51 billion (or ~725-730 million per Super Hornet) to operate 65 Super Hornets over 42 years……….

One could do the same calculation to the Rafale and Eurofighter, both aircraft currently cost more than the LRIP F-35A, and you’d likely find a similar or perhaps greater total than operating 65 Super Hornets……..

I truly hope the Opposition and media continue to harp upon the costs of the F-35, fore once the tally is complete on the other aircraft, they’re going to look like complete and utter boobs………A win for the RCAF getting the F-35, and a political win for the CPC..........

As to Coyne's transgression over the projected service life of the F-35........Well look at the service life of our current Hornet fleet 1983 to ~2023-25

At the end of the day, ~1 billion a year, over 42 years, equals ~5% of DND's annual budget.......... Perspective indeed.

[cybercoma]

There you go trotting out the ridiculous 42 year number that Coyne addresses in his article.

The bottom line is that parliament and Canadians just want to know how much money is going to go towards these jets over their lifetime. It doesn't matter if the operating costs would be the same. We still have to spend that money. In order for the MPs to decide how much money should be spent on fighter jets, they need to know the full costs. They may decide to spend the money elsewhere. But the problem is that neither you, nor the Conservatives can come out and give Canadians an honest number about what it's going to cost taxpayers to fund these things.

[Bonam]

There you go trotting out the ridiculous 42 year number that Coyne addresses in his article.

The bottom line is that parliament and Canadians just want to know how much money is going to go towards these jets over their lifetime. It doesn't matter if the operating costs would be the same. We still have to spend that money. In order for the MPs to decide how much money should be spent on fighter jets, they need to know the full costs. They may decide to spend the money elsewhere. But the problem is that neither you, nor the Conservatives can come out and give Canadians an honest number about what it's going to cost taxpayers to fund these things.

About $1 billion annual budget. There you go. Now go forth and decide.

[Guest Derek L]

There you go trotting out the ridiculous 42 year number that Coyne addresses in his article.

The bottom line is that parliament and Canadians just want to know how much money is going to go towards these jets over their lifetime. It doesn't matter if the operating costs would be the same. We still have to spend that money. In order for the MPs to decide how much money should be spent on fighter jets, they need to know the full costs. They may decide to spend the money elsewhere. But the problem is that neither you, nor the Conservatives can come out and give Canadians an honest number about what it's going to cost taxpayers to fund these things.

Why is it ridiculous? His 30 years, based on actual fact is more so……….Our current Hornets entered service in January of 1983, or 30 years next month………The RCAF won’t fully replace our Hornets until the middle of next decade……….Do the math.

[Guest Derek L]

About $1 billion annual budget. There you go. Now go forth and decide.

Did you know our Healthcare costs would "soar" into the trillions over 42 years

Funny they don’t seem too concerned about the figures (well into the 100s of billions) associated with replacing our navy…..

NDP = No Defense Policy.........

[cybercoma]

About $1 billion annual budget. There you go. Now go forth and decide.

It's $46 billion over 30 years, according to KPMG and the PBO. That would be $1.5 Billion per year.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fighter jets shmyter jets, the're jet powered fighters not fighter powered jets. We don't say truck diesels, cycle motors, train electrics, car hybrids or airliner jets. The're jet fighters for cripes sake.

Heh-heh...I've always thought it cute and quaint the way some Canadians refer to these aircraft as "jets" or "fighter jets". That's so 1950's !

[cybercoma]

Did you know our Healthcare costs would "soar" into the trillions over 42 years

Funny they don’t seem too concerned about the figures (well into the 100s of billions) associated with replacing our navy…..

NDP = No Defense Policy.........

We already know that you're ok with the executive branch of the government not fully disclosing costs. I'm sorry that Canadians actually want to know how much money they're going to have to give to the government and what it will be spent on, but that's the way the system works. People are rightfully afraid of a government that just spends their money without any oversight or debate. Not you though. You've shown for hundreds of pages now that you couldn't possibly care less whether or not the government actually gives parliament accurate information.

[Bonam]

It's $46 billion over 30 years, according to KPMG and the PBO. That would be $1.5 Billion per year.

1.5 is about 1

[cybercoma]

What's 50% greater. *shrugs*

[Bonam]

What's 50% greater. *shrugs*

Within a factor of 2 is good enough for government work.

[Guest Derek L]

It's $46 billion over 30 years, according to KPMG and the PBO. That would be $1.5 Billion per year.

So 5.5% of the defense budget......

[Guest Derek L]

We already know that you're ok with the executive branch of the government not fully disclosing costs. I'm sorry that Canadians actually want to know how much money they're going to have to give to the government and what it will be spent on, but that's the way the system works. People are rightfully afraid of a government that just spends their money without any oversight or debate. Not you though. You've shown for hundreds of pages now that you couldn't possibly care less whether or not the government actually gives parliament accurate information.

So why isn't the NDP asking about the vastly more expensive shipbuilding program? Could it be they don't want to ruffle the feathers all those union workers?