F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Most definitely.

why skew the quote, lil' buddy? ... you suggest/imply the synonym for moronic/stupid was directed at an individual rather than that individual's action.

in any case, it's clear you have nothing to offer to this thread other than your drive-by snipes - instead why not trundle on over here to this thread, this post... you know, the one where you went MIA. Come on over, hey?

[waldo]

And your point? As I mentioned, they didn’t recommend another aircraft.

and your point? As was stated, evaluating the merits of the F-35 wasn't a part of the Auditor General's audit scope.

[Jack Weber]

why skew the quote, lil' buddy? ... you suggest/imply the synonym for moronic/stupid was directed at an individual rather than that individual's action.

in any case, it's clear you have nothing to offer to this thread other than your drive-by snipes - instead why not trundle on over here to this thread, this post... you know, the one where you went MIA. Come on over, hey?

There are other stellar professorial,and historically salient, contributions by the poster in question in the "Bullets" thread...

[Guest Derek L]

and your point? As was stated, evaluating the merits of the F-35 wasn't a part of the Auditor General's audit scope.

To clarify then, the attacks aimed at the F-35 post AG report, are now just questioning the potential process in which it was selected, but not the technical merits now of the aircraft? Whoops, the Government and DND have been called on the carpet over clarification of accounting practices, and have since committed to changing their ways………Good thing no money has exchanged hands for the acquisition of the F-35, or this might have been a real scandal.

So would you be ok if all the potential costs, though already available in past budgets for decades, of acquiring and maintaining a fleet of fast jets, that is comprised of the LockMart F-35, are “made public” for clarification to Parliament and the general public?

In other words, if all the recommendations of the AG report are met, you’ll be fine with the Government purchasing the F-35?

[The_Squid]

You are aware of how old those F-18s are, right?

So will there be a pre-emptive strike against us before we get these F35's since they will be more of a deterrent? I know how old the F18's are and that they will need to be replaced. But is the F35 more of a deterrent than what we have now?

Edited April 9, 2012 by The_Squid

[waldo]

In other words, if all the recommendations of the AG report are met, you’ll be fine with the Government purchasing the F-35?

I've stated my preferences, now several times previously... so, no... I would not be fine.

you seem to accept a blank cheque scenario - whatever it costs! Notwithstanding the ever increasing U.S. estimates, the Auditor General states that "25 Billion figure", even as it stands today, is not reflective of actual costs. I will repeat an earlier post for your blank cheque consideration; most particularly, 20 years life-cycle versus the real/actual life expectancy, replacement costs, upgrade costs, weapons costs, costs associated with further delays, and many existing cost estimates that have no legitimate foundation to support estimate reliability.

oh my! Just what might the ultimate costs be???

Auditor General's Report:

United States’ estimates of the future purchase price of the F-35 are in flux

. Estimates for sustainment costs are not fully developed. Although the budgets established for the acquisition (CAN$9 billion) and for operations and sustainment (CAN$16 billion) include provision for contingency,

there is a risk that these budgets may not be sufficient

.

We have a number of observations regarding the life-cycle costing for the F-35. First,

costs have not been fully presented in relation to the life of the aircraft

. The estimated life expectancy of the F-35 is about 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. National Defence plans to operate the fleet for at least that long. It is able to estimate costs over 36 years. We recognize that long-term estimates are highly sensitive to assumptions about future costs as well as to currency exchange rates. However,

in presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years. This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft’s estimated life expectancy

. The JSF Program Office provided National Defence with projected sustainment costs over 36 years.

Second,

the following expected costs were not accounted for

:

-

Replacement aircraft

. National Defence considers 65 aircraft the minimum number needed to meet its training and operational requirements. Based on past experience, National Defence expects to lose aircraft in the course of normal usage. Based on National Defence’s assumed attrition rate, in order to maintain the fleet of 65 aircraft, Canada may need to purchase up to 14 additional aircraft over the next 36 years.

National Defence did inform the government of the need to consider the requirement for attrition aircraft at a later date. The cost of replacement aircraft is not included in the life-cycle estimate for this project and will be treated as a separate project in the future.

-

Upgrades

. It is expected that over the life of the aircraft, Canada will need to invest in various upgrades to the F-35 fleet, both in software and hardware. These costs were not known when the 2008 and 2010 budgets were established, but

have since been estimated to be more than CAN$1.2 billion

over 20 years.

-

Weapons

. National Defence has currently allocated enough weapons for an initial stockpile to last for 45 days of conflict operations. National Defence assumes that it will use existing weapons from the CF-18s to fulfill some of its needs. It will absorb future weapons purchases from its operating budget, and the purchase of new weapons during the fleet’s life cycle will be addressed through future acquisition projects.

Third, many costs are not yet reliably known or cannot yet be estimated. These include the basic unit recurring flyaway cost of the aircraft, the cost of Canadian required modifications, and the cost of sustainment. In addition, National Defence is still developing its planning assumptions for operating the fleet.

This involves hundreds of interrelated decisions about such matters as how pilot and technician training will be delivered, what physical infrastructure is required and what portion is directly attributable to the F-35, how maintenance and repair activities will be supported, and what they will cost. National Defence currently assumes that average annual maintenance and repair costs for the F-35 fleet will be the same as for the CF-18 fleet. At the time of this audit, the project had not yet entered the formal Project Definition Phase, when many of these decisions will be taken and the cost implications will be better known. Consequently, estimates of the full life-cycle costs for the F-35 will likely change as the basis for the estimates becomes firmer.

Also unknown are the

cost implications if further delays in the delivery of the F-35 require National Defence to make significant investments to extend the operation and life of the CF-18

fleet.

[Argus]

clarity and respect... simply my mainstays

On which forum might that be?

[Guest Derek L]

I've stated my preferences, now several times previously... so, no... I would not be fine.

you seem to accept a blank cheque scenario - whatever it costs! Notwithstanding the ever increasing U.S. estimates, the Auditor General states that "25 Billion figure", even as it stands today, is not reflective of actual costs. I will repeat an earlier post for your blank cheque consideration; most particularly, 20 years life-cycle versus the real/actual life expectancy, replacement costs, upgrade costs, weapons costs, costs associated with further delays, and many existing cost estimates that have no legitimate foundation to support estimate reliability.

Don’t get me wrong, the associated costs with operating a fighter force for the expected ~35 years of the F-35 lifespan can’t be definitely guesstimated………How many JDAMs will be dropped over the next 35 years by the RCAF’s F-35s or how many boot laces will be replaced by crews associated with F-35 squadrons, I have not a clue.

[punked]

Don’t get me wrong, the associated costs with operating a fighter force for the expected ~35 years of the F-35 lifespan can’t be definitely guesstimated………How many JDAMs will be dropped over the next 35 years by the RCAF’s F-35s or how many boot laces will be replaced by crews associated with F-35 squadrons, I have not a clue.

Yah 25 Billion is over 20 years.

[Guest Derek L]

Yah 25 Billion is over 20 years.

Really? If 25 billion is the cost of our entire participation, over the span of ~35 years that the F-35 will likely see service, that’s a great deal!!!!! that's what? ~700 million a year? It’s almost like that figure would fit into the current defence budget………That’s wonderful Punked!!! Thanks again!!

[cybercoma]

Really? If 25 billion is the cost of our entire participation, over the span of ~35 years that the F-35 will likely see service, that’s a great deal!!!!!

Because the last 10 years will be free?

[Guest Derek L]

Because the last 10 years will be free?

Will we still be paying for the acquisition cost for the final ~15 years?

[dre]

Really? If 25 billion is the cost of our entire participation, over the span of ~35 years that the F-35 will likely see service, that’s a great deal!!!!! that's what? ~700 million a year? It’s almost like that figure would fit into the current defence budget………That’s wonderful Punked!!! Thanks again!!

Well its hard to tell what other indirect costs we will have... Im willing to bet you 2 houses, a few cars, and two boats that they will never defend Canada from attack. But I can almost promise you that they WILL be used in unprovoked attacks on other nations around the world under the umbrella of "world policing". These actions definately post a THREAT to our national security, and every time we fly over some other countries and bomb the shit out of its inhabitants we create thousands of people that would love to do the same to use in return, and will if they get a chance. So then you have to spend more mitigating THAT threat as well, or worse... they find a way to really f__k us up.

These activities hurt our national security, they needless make a lot of people into our enemies, and they damage our future economic prospects by wasting so much money on projects without any return on investment. Its like spending a billion dollars to dig a big hole then fill it back in...all the direct advantage Canadian taxpayers get from these misadventures.

This is why a lot of politicians from previous eras were very wary of the idea of having large permanent standing militaries. They knew that would be used for all kinds of things besides defense and for misadventures that would come back to bite us not only in the ass but in the wallet.

Edited April 9, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Well its hard to tell what other indirect costs we will have... Im willing to bet you 2 houses, a few cars, and two boats that they will never defend Canada from attack. But I can almost promise you that they WILL be used in unprovoked attacks on other nations around the world under the umbrella of "world policing". These actions definately post a THREAT to our national security, and every time we fly over some other countries and bomb the shit out of its inhabitants we create thousands of people that would love to do the same to use in return, and will if they get a chance. So then you have to spend more mitigating THAT threat as well, or worse... they find a way to really f__k us up.

These activities hurt our national security, they needless make a lot of people into our enemies, and they damage our future economic prospects by wasting so much money on projects without any return on investment. Its like spending a billion dollars to dig a big hole then fill all the direct advantage Canadian taxpayers get from these adventures.

This is why a lot of politicians from previous eras were very wary of the idea of having large permanent standing militaries. They knew that would be used for all kinds of things besides defense, and for misadventures that would come back to bite us not only in the ass but in the wallet.

As I’ve suggested (to you?) in another thread, that is a debate associated with Canadian foreign policy….though a valid point, it diverges from historic precedent, that encompasses our use, of our military, in foreign wars since it’s creation.

[cybercoma]

Will we still be paying for the acquisition cost for the final ~15 years?

If you're following proper accounting principles, you will be. I mean, unless you don't think these jets will need maintenance or depreciate in value at all in those last 10 years.

[Guest Derek L]

If you're following proper accounting principles, you will be. I mean, unless you don't think these jets will need maintenance or depreciate in value at all in those last 10 years.

I understand the costing of flying squadrons……I suppose sarcasm doesn’t convey well over the internet…….Yes, jet fighters are very expensive to operate and make attractive targets for cuts by Government, this is evident by the downward trend in aircraft numbers of the RCAF since the end of the Second World War……..Some can be afforded to advancements in technology and some to changing requirements, but yes, they are expensive, regardless of type.

[waldo]

you seem to accept a blank cheque scenario - whatever it costs! Notwithstanding the ever increasing U.S. estimates, the Auditor General states that "25 Billion figure", even as it stands today, is not reflective of actual costs. I will repeat an earlier post for your blank cheque consideration; most particularly, 20 years life-cycle versus the real/actual life expectancy, replacement costs, upgrade costs, weapons costs, costs associated with further delays, and many existing cost estimates that have no legitimate foundation to support estimate reliability.

Don’t get me wrong, the associated costs with operating a fighter force for the expected ~35 years of the F-35 lifespan can’t be definitely guesstimated………

so... I'm now reading that DND has agreed to amend it's estimates beyond the fallacious 20 year life-cycle. Rather, based on the Auditor General's Report, DND will now issue F-35 cost estimates that reflect upon the estimated life expectancy of the F-35... 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. Care to guesstimate what adding in an additional 16 years will do to the current "25 Billion estimate" (that was only based on 20 year costs)?

[Signals.Cpl]

so... I'm now reading that DND has agreed to amend it's estimates beyond the fallacious 20 year life-cycle. Rather, based on the Auditor General's Report, DND will now issue F-35 cost estimates that reflect upon the estimated life expectancy of the F-35... 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. Care to guesstimate what adding in an additional 16 years will do to the current "25 Billion estimate" (that was only based on 20 year costs)?

In that case, we are never getting those SAR aircraft... such a shame

[Guest Derek L]

so... I'm now reading that DND has agreed to amend it's estimates beyond the fallacious 20 year life-cycle. Rather, based on the Auditor General's Report, DND will now issue F-35 cost estimates that reflect upon the estimated life expectancy of the F-35... 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. Care to guesstimate what adding in an additional 16 years will do to the current "25 Billion estimate" (that was only based on 20 year costs)?

I would guess based on the ~$10 billion figure mentioned by the AG report on costs associated with operating a fighter fleet, regardless of type, over the initial twenty years, I’d suggest (not taking into account inflation etc) the sunk costs for the fleet on the backend ~15 years would be similar to the front end…or ½ a billion a year or an additional ~7-8 billion.

Fighter pilot’s children will need dental work, PMQ’s maintained, hangers repainted, runways & aprons resurfaced, etc…..

These costs are a given, regardless of our choice of aircraft.

What will differ is both the short, medium and long term are maintenance costs differing amongst the different aircraft………the F-35 aside, all current “competitors” aircraft, post 2030s, either won’t be operated or in the process of retirement by their principle operators…….All maintenance support, upgrade programs and future growth potential (if any) will be financed by the Government of Canada…..and that won’t be cheap…….to say nothing of the dated technical aspects of operating 4th generation aircraft into the middle of the century.

[cybercoma]

As Andrew Coyne said, "The costs of an asset are the costs of the asset, not just the increment over what some other asset would cost."

[eyeball]

In that case, we are never getting those SAR aircraft... such a shame

What about bill C-10 and corporate tax cuts? I can't think of anything that will kill this monstrosity of a boondoggle faster than disclosing the fullest costs possible of whatever else the government has stashed under the table.

If fiscal conservatives were concerned that lefties are blissfully unaware of fiscal realities they need not be concerned any longer.

Your social brethren have most definitely got our attention.

[dre]

What about bill C-10 and corporate tax cuts? I can't think of anything that will kill this monstrosity of a boondoggle faster than disclosing the fullest costs possible of whatever else the government has stashed under the table.

If fiscal conservatives were concerned that lefties are blissfully unaware of fiscal realities they need not be concerned any longer.

Your social brethren have most definitely got our attention.

There is no fiscal conservatives in Canada, and very few in the rest of the western world. Western culture is diametrically opposed to that concept and our entire economic system resolves on spending as much money into the economy as possible be it cash or credit.

[Army Guy]

I'm not following the logic behind the decision to include everything in the total price of the F-35. It's been explained atleast a hundard times that those cost are already accounted for in DND annual O&M budget, and with this practice will be accounted for twice. And if the AG can see that then he or rather we need a new AG. The only thing this pracice does is scew the entire purchase...and no one on the left is disagreed with it, because it fits your agenda, it still does not make it right.

i'd like to ask the left when you go out and buy a new car ot truck do you sit your wife down and tell her, look the price of the truck is 50 k , i plan to own that truck for 15 years it's going to cost another 50K to put gas in it, maintain it, new tires, new oakleys becasue it have to look good,new clothes to match the glasses, new drive way don't want to get it dirty, this is exactly what your asking DND to do...and good luck with getting your wife or anyone to agree with a 100K truck purchase....

The orginal 9 bil dollars is one of the largest purchases DND will make in it's history, out of a total of what ,I ve seen quotes as high as 400 bil spent over the next 30 years, the orginal qoute back some 5 years ago was 160 bil which seems closer to the target. I mention that because 9 bil does not sound that high anymore, i also mention that because one of the main factors in this is previous cuts remember the dacade of darkness...and we still have not recovered from that, many of the projects are still on the boards, and could be canceled at any time.

We spend 1.5 % of our GDP on defense, and it has become a major issue with the Canadian people not the remaining 98.5 % just the 1.5 % nobody wants to touch their piece of the pie.

The other aurgument i've heard is WHO would attack Canada, or WHO could attack Canada, and this other BS comment about group b and the soviets over estamated numbers...one of the reasons we have a military is a safety net, much like we have other debt's as well CSIS , Coast gaurd, Immigration, etc etc and if you convinced so much that your will to place your life, and life style on the line then convince me, Shit why not close it down entirely , close them all the securty debts down i mean your convince nobody sees us as a threat, nobody can attack us according to you.. if your not going to FUND them properly then shut them down.. I find it sad that we as Canadians place the old all mighty dollar ahead of human lifes..I mean we will say in a crowd we support our military , most Canadians will even say we are under manned, under equiped, and we should do something about that, until they hear how much it's going to cost THEN all you hear is we need a debate, we need to look at cheaper solutions...

I've been in the Military for over 30 years and have been an instrument of our foreign policy the entire time, which puts doubt on your whole question of does canada have threats..if they did not have any i would be out of a job along time ago...and during all those years i can count on one hand in which we purchased equipment we truely wanted, most of the time it was products chesen by PWSG by specs provided by DND and then the cheapest bidder, and only if there was some polictic mileage to be had, such as who's riding could it be built, could it be built in Canada...a great example of this is that LSVW, built by western star, an Italian design, which works great in Italy, our version sucks ass, in fact to get DND to give it a final passing grade it had to be taken to the desert, in the US. But because it could be built out westy in someones riding the government shose it...how many policticians have any military time, how many PWSG folks know anything about the military or Combat...none, its like sending your wife out to by power tools or having your wife send you out to buy kichen appliances...its not a good practice.

You can debate this all day long however the men that are actually sit in this fighter have spoken, this is the plane the government has not explained it well enough it does not change the fact that it is our next fighter. do you want joe blow debating the tech aspects of this purchase no...if it cost to much then yes lets debate costs, but tech aspects leave it to the experts... the main issue that i see is not enough AC are being purchased.

[cybercoma]

I'm not following the logic behind the decision to include everything in the total price of the F-35.

Because it's not a total price unless it's the total price. The government needs to secure that money through taxation and budgets. It's not a given. Parliament needs to approve the government's budget each year. They're not going to, but theoretically, parliament can decide that it does not want 65 jets. It could in theory decide it wants zero jets. So whatever is decided, we need to ensure that the funding is there. If we decide to have 65 fighter jets, we also need to fund the pilots, fuel, maintenance, upgrades, weapons, etc. for the entire life of those jets. Those costs are itinerant, not fixed, as you and others are arguing. They are the costs associated with buying 65 brand new fighter jets.

[Guest Derek L]

Because it's not a total price unless it's the total price. The government needs to secure that money through taxation and budgets. It's not a given. Parliament needs to approve the government's budget each year. They're not going to, but theoretically, parliament can decide that it does not want 65 jets. It could in theory decide it wants zero jets. So whatever is decided, we need to ensure that the funding is there. If we decide to have 65 fighter jets, we also need to fund the pilots, fuel, maintenance, upgrades, weapons, etc. for the entire life of those jets. Those costs are itinerant, not fixed, as you and others are arguing. They are the costs associated with buying 65 brand new fighter jets.

So to clarify, your position is this is not a debate on purchasing the F-35 itself, but on the process that it was selected and the accounting in which it was priced and if we even want fighters?

So if the Government, as per the AG report, crosses all their “T’s” and dots all their “I’s”, and still find the F-35 as the most suitable Hornet replacement, you would be fine with it’s selection?

I know Waldo’s stance, as I know dre’s and eyeball’s , what is your’s? I ask, since you seem as one of the more vocal opponents, that obviously has more than trollish opinions. If you (or perhaps the NDP as a party?) don’t feel Canada can afford and/or requires modern fighter aircraft, why not state this as position of policy/personal opinion?