F-35 Purchase

[punked]

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)?

Price just went up big guy. Better get your calculator out.

F-35A: US$197 million (weapons system flyaway cost, 2012)

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

This is the problem, Conservatives want to use whatever numbers they want instead of the numbers EVERY other country is using and assessing those costs the way EVERY other country is doing it. Just stop lets have a real debate across this country with real up to date numbers including all costs.

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

It doesn't matter that you don't see it that way. The convention that business and governments for projects of this nature as I have posted a paper about is to do the way the Auditor did.

That's the convention? Can you find a single previous instance where this was done with a major military procurement in Canada? Feel free to go back to the Boer war if you like.

[punked]

That's the convention? Can you find a single previous instance where this was done with a major military procurement in Canada? Feel free to go back to the Boer war if you like.

Just pointed to how EVERY country does it and linked to several documents to that effect.

[Guest Derek L]

Price just went up big guy. Better get your calculator out.

F-35A: US$197 million (weapons system flyaway cost, 2012)

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

This is the problem, Conservatives want to use whatever numbers they want instead of the numbers EVERY other country is using and assessing those costs the way EVERY other country is doing it. Just stop lets have a real debate across this country with real up to date numbers including all costs.

Your link demonstrates US DoD costing for LRIP aircraft next year…….Compare applies to oranges much?

Let’s go back to your earlier link…..

So the unit flyaway cost (from your above link) is 65-75 million per copy or ~4.8 billion for 65 aircraft…….The Government has budgeted ~9 billion for acquisition costs for 65 aircraft……..

[Argus]

No, you lease them.

From your local Ford dealership, no doubt.

[Argus]

If Russia wanted to walk into Canada it could. It could never hold Canada and fighter jets aren't stopping the Russian army if they want to invade us. They have 20,000,000 reserves or half the population of Canada.

Russia got its ass kicked by Finland in the second world war. Don't mistake size for competence. No one has ever been particularly awed by the organizational capabilities of the Soviet Army, and I don't know that the Russians are much better, especially in terms of motivation for their soldiers to run into fire.

In any event, we're not talking about an all-out war, but something minor. We're also talking about Canada having military alliances to help in the event of such things, and the need to have at least some military capability in order to be part of those alliances.

Do you guys think we can just do without a military, and rely on NATO to protect us? Do you think they're going to be willingly putting out tens of billions for a military while we sit back, relax, and spend nothing? Guess again!

[punked]

Your link demonstrates US DoD costing for LRIP aircraft next year…….Compare applies to oranges much?

Let’s go back to your earlier link…..

So the unit flyaway cost (from your above link) is 65-75 million per copy or ~4.8 billion for 65 aircraft…….The Government has budgeted ~9 billion for acquisition costs for 65 aircraft……..

Instead of going with the up to date number from the US you want to go back to a number from 2 years ago? I get you want to use whatever number is lower but that isn't how it works now is it? I can not find any estimates from the push back this year that put the number where you want it to be sorry.

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

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....

If the Conservatives lied by not including the costs of the freaking hangars then so did the Chretien government before them, the Mulroney government, the Trudeau government, and every other government going back through Macdonald.

[eyeball]

From your local Ford dealership, no doubt.

I was thinking from some other cash strapped country that invested in these stupid things.

[punked]

If the Conservatives lied by not including the costs of the freaking hangars then so did the Chretien government before them, the Mulroney government, the Trudeau government, and every other government going back through Macdonald.

Considering the AG report in 2010 about the Chinook told the government they needed to include life cycle costs when buying equipment this shouldn't be a new thing to them Argus. I get it the government refuses to open and transparent no matter how many times the AG recommends they should be.

[Argus]

Just pointed to how EVERY country does it and linked to several documents to that effect.

I asked about Canada, and how we did procurement during the previous administrations. In order to make this into the big bad scandal you all are acting like it is you need to show the Tories changed the way Canadian governments priced out equipment purchases in the past, and you haven't done that.

[Signals.Cpl]

Price just went up big guy. Better get your calculator out.

F-35A: US$197 million (weapons system flyaway cost, 2012)

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

This is the problem, Conservatives want to use whatever numbers they want instead of the numbers EVERY other country is using and assessing those costs the way EVERY other country is doing it. Just stop lets have a real debate across this country with real up to date numbers including all costs.

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)

C is Carrier based. B is VOTL and Im pretty sure Canada will not buy those.

Cost per aircraft is roughly 80million +/- 5million.

Weapons (initial buy) 270million for 25billion budget 300million for 14billion budget.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html

Are you saying the AG is lying about the cost?

And one thing, You do realise I can go and change your evidence? I can easily make the price 10 dollars on wikipedia and there goes your argument.

I realise you posted the source from wikipedia but I highly doubt you actualy read it.

[Signals.Cpl]

Considering the AG report in 2010 about the Chinook told the government they needed to include life cycle costs when buying equipment this shouldn't be a new thing to them Argus. I get it the government refuses to open and transparent no matter how many times the AG recommends they should be.

source?

[punked]

C is Carrier based. B is VOTL and Im pretty sure Canada will not buy those.

Cost per aircraft is roughly 80million +/- 5million.

Weapons (initial buy) 270million for 25billion budget 300million for 14billion budget.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html

Are you saying the AG is lying about the cost?

And one thing, You do realise I can go and change your evidence? I can easily make the price 10 dollars on wikipedia and there goes your argument.

I realise you posted the source from wikipedia but I highly doubt you actualy read it.

I posted the source it was from the US airforce budget and predictions form this year. Have fun going to change those numbers.

[Guest Derek L]

Instead of going with the up to date number from the US you want to go back to a number from 2 years ago? I get you want to use whatever number is lower but that isn't how it works now is it? I can not find any estimates from the push back this year that put the number where you want it to be sorry.

Hey, I'm using the numbers, provided by you, from a link dated 4 months ago:

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

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]

source?

You will notice different AG, different program, same conclusions.

Full life-cycle costs, including in-service support, have not yet been determined

6.35 The Treasury Board Contracting Policy states that inherent in procuring best value is the consideration of all relevant costs over the useful life of the equipment, not solely the initial acquisition or basic contract cost. Moreover, National Defence’s Project Approval Guide requires an estimation of total indicative costs when seeking preliminary project approval and total substantive costs for effective project approval. We recognize the challenges associated with estimating costs in such major acquisitions, particularly at the preliminary project approval phase, and that costing information is expected to become more precise over time. Careful planning and full costing are needed to ensure that all of the elements required to provide the needed defence capability come together in a timely and predictable way and that adequate funds are available to support the equipment over the long term. In the case of the maritime helicopter, start-up and arrival of the Cyclone must also be coordinated with modifications to the frigates and with the transition from the Sea King helicopter.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html

[Signals.Cpl]

I posted the source it was from the US airforce budget and predictions form this year. Have fun going to change those numbers.

What page is it on?Using wikipedia as a source and just copying their numbers is a little sketchy, then you go and post a source you did not even read.

[Signals.Cpl]

You will notice different AG, different program, same conclusions.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html

Where exactly in your evidence does it state include salary and operational cost?

[punked]

Hey, I'm using the numbers, provided by you, from a link dated 4 months ago:

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

And yet the newest documents from 2 months ago after the push back in development 2 years put the price much higher.

[Argus]

Considering the AG report in 2010 about the Chinook told the government they needed to include life cycle costs when buying equipment this shouldn't be a new thing to them Argus. I get it the government refuses to open and transparent no matter how many times the AG recommends they should be.

I can see the AG, being an accountant, would want every single cost itemized. However, governments are somewhat more cognizant of the limited attention span of the electorate. They don't want to tell people we just paid a million dollars to buy a hammer because people will explode. Oh, but the cost of the hammer includes the wages, benefits, pensions, and all other costs associated with the guy who's going to swing the hammer for the next fifty years! No, they don't want to do that. People will see the million dollars for a hammer and go ballistic. So government just tells us what the freaking hammer costs. We're happy with that, and it's not deceptive. The rest of the costs are in the departmental estimates and spending documents.

The feds are not unique in this respect. For example, you'll see in this announcement, that the city of Ottawa signed a deal to purchase 57 new police cars this February at a cost of $1.7 million, or about $28,000 apiece. Now under your revised accounting system, that price should have included the salaries, benefits, uniforms, etc. of the police who will drive them, as well as the fuel, maintenance, spares, and a depreciation cost for the garage which houses them, etc. etc. So what the headline should have read was "Ottawa to buy 57 new police cars for forty million dollars." Yeah, bet that would raise a few eyebrows.

Ottawa to buy new police cars

[punked]

Where exactly in your evidence does it state include salary and operational cost?

It says right there in the report the full life cycle costs were not done for the program. I have already shown you in this thread how full life cycle costs are done they include full and operation costs. Which is what the AG was saying in 2010. The government ignored her.

[Signals.Cpl]

And yet the newest documents from 2 months ago after the push back in development 2 years put the price much higher.

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)

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

page 61

Thank You for bringing it to our attention

[Guest Derek L]

And yet the newest documents from 2 months ago after the push back in development 2 years put the price much higher.

Which document? Are you suggesting that you’ve provided the above link, I quoted from, knowing it has questionable data?

Or is that once the data you provide to support your “argument” has in fact proved the inverse, you question it’s utility?

This is like trying to nail Jello to the wall…….

[punked]

Which document? Are you suggesting that you’ve provided the above link, I quoted from, knowing it has questionable data?

Or is that once the data you provide to support your “argument” has in fact proved the inverse, you question it’s utility?

This is like trying to nail Jello to the wall…….

Here you go have fun reading the newest numbers.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

Ohhhh I see your costing. Yah that does not include engines or weapon systems. You think we might want to include those numbers to? Or you cool with airplanes that can't fly? That is where most of our discrepancy comes from. I want an airplane that can fly and you want one that can't.

Edited April 9, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

It says right there in the report the full life cycle costs were not done for the program. I have already shown you in this thread how full life cycle costs are done they include full and operation costs. Which is what the AG was saying in 2010. The government ignored her.

You infer that it includes salaries and operating cost, but it does not state so.