F-35 Purchase

[sharkman]

No, it's not a done deal.......As I posted in the shipbuilding thread, the Government is still seeking outside help on development of the JSS/AOR portion, and that’s one of the easier segments of the entire program………..And no orders have yet been placed for a single naval vessel……….Like I said, it’s telling on the lack of response by the NDP…….You’re worried the F-35 will force us to cut social programs, but not a question about a program that is many magnitudes greater in terms of overall cost.........

Like the F-35, no contracts have been signed for the ships.

~9 billion dollars..........So about those ships......

Excellent points, as usual the NDP is intellectually bankrupt and simply playing this for all it's worth in the media. Those ships will cost more over the course of 40 to 50 years, yet there is no outrage at all.

[Guest Derek L]

And the latest from Mr Ivison:

http://fullcomment.n...35s-for-canada/

In September, the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period.

We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each.

There you go Super Hornet cheerleaders:

Super Hornet with 20 years support: $272 million per plane

F-35 with 20 years support: $249 million per plane

Though I’ve been harshly critical of Mr Ivison’s reporting on defence maters, I’ll applaud my fellow Scotsman for finally “running the numbers” on other aircraft, thusly getting ahead of the pack so as to avoid an egg facial………

Bring on and burn down the Eurofighter and Rafale strawmen.

And a fitting ending:

The point is, there are no cheap options out there. If we accept we need the capability to police our own half of the continent, and contribute to overseas operations as part of a multi-national military alliance, then we should just suck it up and stop whining about the cost.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Derek L

[Signals.Cpl]

How much would the bidding process cost Canadians?

[Guest Derek L]

How much would the bidding process cost Canadians?

Not too sure without a clear definition of what the competition would entail…………thankfully, time won’t really mater since we’d planned to purchase the F-35s in the 2016-17 timeframe (after the next election)…….For money, not sure, the audit by KPMG cost over 600k……..I’d guess, figuring into the tens of millions, perhaps 100s of millions…….depends how many contractors and staff are assigned to it in the puzzle factory……..

[jbg]

Harper's reconsideration of the F35's even made the New York Times (link, excerpts below) . My own analysis is that peace negotiations between the U.S. and Canada and the initiation of a U.N. guided peace process much like the one that working well nowadays in Syria has facilitated the cancellation.

Canada Reviews Plans to Buy F-35 Fighter Jets

By

IAN AUSTEN

and

CHRISTOPHER DREW

Published: December 12, 2012

Canada

said Wednesday that it would reconsider plans to buy 65

F-35

fighter jets after an independent audit found that the sophisticated stealth planes would cost substantially more than the government had promised.

The decision was an unusual step back by

Stephen Harper

, the prime minister, who has been a strident defender of the purchase despite widespread public criticism of the price. Two cabinet ministers said an independent panel would review a variety of options, including a version of Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter as well as sticking with the F-35, made by

Lockheed Martin

.

“We have hit the reset button and are taking the time to do a complete assessment of all available aircraft,” Rona Ambrose, the public works minister, told reporters in Ottawa.

Edited December 14, 2012 by jbg

[Signals.Cpl]

Not too sure without a clear definition of what the competition would entail…………thankfully, time won’t really mater since we’d planned to purchase the F-35s in the 2016-17 timeframe (after the next election)…….For money, not sure, the audit by KPMG cost over 600k……..I’d guess, figuring into the tens of millions, perhaps 100s of millions…….depends how many contractors and staff are assigned to it in the puzzle factory……..

Who here thinks NDP will add that to the cost of the aircraft?

[Guest Derek L]

Who here thinks NDP will add that to the cost of the aircraft?

Oh, you know it.........

[Guest Derek L]

Harper's reconsideration of the F35's even made the New York Times (link, excerpts below) . My own analysis is that peace negotiations between the U.S. and Canada and the initiation of a U.N. guided peace process much like the one that working well nowadays in Syria has facilitated the cancellation.

Canada Reviews Plans to Buy F-35 Fighter Jets

By

IAN AUSTEN

and

CHRISTOPHER DREW

Published: December 12, 2012

Canada

said Wednesday that it would reconsider plans to buy 65

F-35

fighter jets after an independent audit found that the sophisticated stealth planes would cost substantially more than the government had promised.

The decision was an unusual step back by

Stephen Harper

, the prime minister, who has been a strident defender of the purchase despite widespread public criticism of the price. Two cabinet ministers said an independent panel would review a variety of options, including a version of Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter as well as sticking with the F-35, made by

Lockheed Martin

.

“We have hit the reset button and are taking the time to do a complete assessment of all available aircraft,” Rona Ambrose, the public works minister, told reporters in Ottawa.

From your link:

Ms. Ambrose and Mr. MacKay repeatedly used the word “reset” on Wednesday and avoided questions about what that step would mean in evaluating alternatives. The ministers and officials, however, did make it clear that no decision had been made to start a formal competition among aircraft manufacturers and acknowledged that it remained possible that Canada would stick with the F-35.

and

Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the KPMG cost estimate for Canada was in line with the Pentagon’s current projections for the cost of the planes.

She said that Canada’s decision to review its options seemed similar to a high-level review the Pentagon conducted in 2010 when problems were mounting with the planes. Top Pentagon officials determined then that they had no alternative that could provide the same capability.

Rest my case.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Derek L

[jbg]

Rest my case.

I was focusing on the positive role of the U.N. in creating peace between the U.S. and Canada, much the way it is bringing peace to Syria and Egypt.

[cybercoma]

The NDP’s argument is that the Conservatives just stated the purchase price of the new “car”, and didn’t mention that like the old car, the new car will require gas and insurance, just like the car we own now…….That’s a moronic argument to make……..

No. What's moronic is saying that they don't have to release those costs even though it's their own policy that says they have to, the auditor general says the have to, and the PBO has demanded that they do.

Hiding, then denying, then spinning the full cost of the F-35s is ridiculous. No government should be telling parliament that they'll get whatever numbers they feel like giving them, like it or lump it. The government is subordinate to Parliament and should be provide it with exactly the costing figures that they ask for.

But it's cool. I get it. You've got a hard-on for these fighters, so you don't give a crap if the government is honest about procurement or not. We all know you would be singing a different tune if it was the NDP in cabinet telling parliament that they don't need to know the full cost, it just costs too much so they're axing the program.

[Signals.Cpl]

But it's cool. I get it. You've got a hard-on for these fighters, so you don't give a crap if the government is honest about procurement or not. We all know you would be singing a different tune if it was the NDP in cabinet telling parliament that they don't need to know the full cost, it just costs too much so they're axing the program.

And you have a hard-on for the RCN and CG ships that most likely are overpriced as it is and use the exact same formula...seems to me you like to lie to people just like the NDP...

[cybercoma]

And you have a hard-on for the RCN and CG ships that most likely are overpriced as it is and use the exact same formula...seems to me you like to lie to people just like the NDP...

I don't give a crap about the ship program. Stop bringing it up. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

[cybercoma]

Frankly, I don't give a crap about the F-35 program either.

I do care about government accountability and transparency. Something the CPC has utterly failed at, despite their myriad promises.

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't give a crap about the ship program. Stop bringing it up. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

It has everything to do with the conversation... If you don't like the hard questions then maybe you shodden be here. You seem to have an obsession with knowing the full cost of the fighter planes even though the RCN ships as well as the CG ships would cost at least 10X what the full cost of the F35 would be.

You are inconsistent because it suits your political position, if the ship building program did not exist and instead we were purchasing the ships from the US or some other nation we would have the exact same problem as the F35. On the flip side if the Harper government was to award some well paying contract to a Quebec firm this issue will be gone so fast your head would spin.

[Signals.Cpl]

Frankly, I don't give a crap about the F-35 program either.

I do care about government accountability and transparency. Something the CPC has utterly failed at, despite their myriad promises.

You don't care about accountability, at least you don't care about accountability as long as it benefits the NDP, you only care about accountability if it has no direct benefit to the NDP politically except as an opposite position to score some extra points.

[cybercoma]

I care about accountability when Parliament can't do its job of overseeing the public purse because the government has a superiority complex. That's when I care about accountability. I don't care about accountability when everything is running smoothly and parliament doesn't have to beg for numbers nor does the PBO have to take the government to court.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

By the way, it's a logical fallacy to suggest that my argument is invalid because I didn't criticize some other unrelated matter. I could go out and murder someone, then make the argument that murder is wrong. That doesn't mean the argument is invalid because I've murdered someone.

[Signals.Cpl]

I care about accountability when Parliament can't do its job of overseeing the public purse because the government has a superiority complex. That's when I care about accountability. I don't care about accountability when everything is running smoothly and parliament doesn't have to beg for numbers nor does the PBO have to take the government to court.

Stealing is right, or its wrong...what you are essentially saying is that stealing is wrong as long as its done by them, but should it benefit you its a-ok.

[Signals.Cpl]

By the way, it's a logical fallacy to suggest that my argument is invalid because I didn't criticize some other unrelated matter. I could go out and murder someone, then make the argument that murder is wrong. That doesn't mean the argument is invalid because I've murdered someone.

No you can go out and say that my son raped or murdered a women and that is bad so he should go to jail for 50 years but your son raped or murdered a women under the exact same circumstances yet the judge should let him go because he did nothing wrong.

In this case the NDP has accused the government of everything over the F-35 because they lied and did not release the right budget but at the same time the NDP is really quiet about the ship building because they benefit from the project politically. There have been at least half a dozen big ticket items purchased for the military in the last 7 years since the Conservatives were in power and none of them used the formula used for the F35s.

cybercoma, please explain to me what would happen with the position the NDP has taken if the government decided to go ahead with the F35's and gave some maintenance contract to Quebec worth 5 billion dollars in NDP ridings? Would the NDP continue their opposition to the project or would they and by extension you stop this fictitious outrage since now they and again by extension you get a piece of the pie?

[cybercoma]

Stealing is right, or its wrong...what you are essentially saying is that stealing is wrong as long as its done by them, but should it benefit you its a-ok.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Go back and try again.

[cybercoma]

No you can go out and say that my son raped or murdered a women and that is bad so he should go to jail for 50 years but your son raped or murdered a women under the exact same circumstances yet the judge should let him go because he did nothing wrong.

In this case the NDP has accused the government of everything over the F-35 because they lied and did not release the right budget but at the same time the NDP is really quiet about the ship building because they benefit from the project politically. There have been at least half a dozen big ticket items purchased for the military in the last 7 years since the Conservatives were in power and none of them used the formula used for the F35s.

cybercoma, please explain to me what would happen with the position the NDP has taken if the government decided to go ahead with the F35's and gave some maintenance contract to Quebec worth 5 billion dollars in NDP ridings? Would the NDP continue their opposition to the project or would they and by extension you stop this fictitious outrage since now they and again by extension you get a piece of the pie?

You've said NDP no less than 5 times in this post and nothing I've said has anything at all to do with the NDP. In fact, a lot of the arguments that I've been putting forward were made by Andrew Coyne, who guess what? Is not NDP. In any case, this has nothing to do with the NDP, so you can stop trolling any time now.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Signals.Cpl]

That's not at all what I'm saying. Go back and try again.

No you are not saying its what you are implying since you have a problem with a but not be even though they are exactly the same. If the government lied to the people you are ok with it as long as it benefits the NDP, the moment is stops benefiting the NDP suddenly the shipbuilding program becomes a target, just like the F35 is a target only as long as it does not benefit the NDP, the second it benefits the NDP they shut up and play along.

[Signals.Cpl]

You've said NDP no less than 5 times in this post and nothing I've said has anything at all to do with the NDP. In fact, a lot of the arguments that I've been putting forward were made by Andrew Coyne, who guess what? Is not NDP. In any case, this has nothing to do with the NDP, so you can stop trolling any time now.

You are either Stupid and I know that is not the case, blind and I'm not so sure about that or you are so so biased that you do not want to admit you are wrong no matter what. The NDP is the driving force behind this as it is the NDP which is the main party that uses this is their hill to die on in order to fraudulently get some votes. You are a liar through omission as you feign outrage about the F35 but not the shipbuilding which use the exact same formula, nice to know you are not thinking for yourself and just regurgitating the opinions of someone else.

It is hard to take you serious when you cry and cry about how the government has been dishonest and lied to the people about the true cost when the shipbuilding projects for both the CG and the RCN are using the same formula and will cost significantly more than stated. You are becoming the equivalent of Fox "news" where they take 2 things that are exactly the same and show fake outrage over one and ignore the other because it benefits their political ideology.

[cybercoma]

No you are not saying its what you are implying since you have a problem with a but not be even though they are exactly the same.

Really? Show me where Parliament asked for the full cost of the shipbuilding program and were given BS and spin. Because they're not the exact same thing. The inference is all yours. I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that the government, regardless of who is in power, needs to be forthcoming with financial information when parliament asks for it. You're shamefully supporting the obfuscation of fiscal matters before Parliament. If you want an elected dictatorship, go to another country because it's completely unacceptable here.

[Guest Derek L]

No. What's moronic is saying that they don't have to release those costs even though it's their own policy that says they have to, the auditor general says the have to, and the PBO has demanded that they do.

Hiding, then denying, then spinning the full cost of the F-35s is ridiculous. No government should be telling parliament that they'll get whatever numbers they feel like giving them, like it or lump it. The government is subordinate to Parliament and should be provide it with exactly the costing figures that they ask for.

But it's cool. I get it. You've got a hard-on for these fighters, so you don't give a crap if the government is honest about procurement or not. We all know you would be singing a different tune if it was the NDP in cabinet telling parliament that they don't need to know the full cost, it just costs too much so they're axing the program.

Again, with a one minute googling, your strawman is disproved:

From summer 2010:

http://www.forces.gc...?cat=00&id=3471

The Government of Canada has committed approximately CAD$9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft and associated weapons, supporting infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs. This is funded through the Canada First Defence Strategy and the National Defence Investment Plan.

And from October of 2010:

http://www.forces.gc...?cat=00&id=3619

Fourth, while the Government has announced up to $9B for the capital program, the $9B covers much more than the cost of $5 to 5.5 Bn for 65 aircraft. It also includes initial logistics, simulators and spares, weapons, infrastructure, program management and contingency. These are all items we would be purchasing regardless of what aircraft was chosen.

Finally, the price that Canada will pay is the cost of production per aircraft, as it comes off the assembly line with a Canadian flag on the tail. Many analysts have cited a myriad of numbers that the U.S. Government will pay, but you must remember that these numbers reflect the total program cost to the U.S. , which includes tooling costs, testing, R&D and project management, etc. Canada is not paying for those costs .

As for the JSF life cycle costs, remember that our current fleet of CF-18s costs money today to keep them running. The money we are anticipating paying for the in-service costs of the F-35 will be of the same magnitude; training a pilot is training a pilot, a litre of fuel is a litre of fuel, runway repairs are runway repairs, etc.

As a partner on the JSF program, we have access to all known costs associated with sustaining the fleet. As I have testified, we estimate the cost of sustaining the fleet at $250-300M per year, but we believe the story is actually better.

If the NDP isn't listening or doesn't understand the concept.........

*edit to add........And, as linked in the recent NP link, said costs ($250 million) are now "proven" by KPMG

Edited December 14, 2012 by Derek L