F-35 Purchase

[Topaz]

The Guy with the book coming out, well he the former assistant deputy minister to the DND, and he was on CBC's The House and he disagrees with the Tories and put the blame on bureaucrats, for one. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/f-35-procurement-process-manipulated-184639235.html

[Army Guy]

do you really need me to point out your link and quotes say nothing... nothing... about a NATO single fighter jet interoperability standards policy. Like I said, do a tally of all the assorted types of jet fighters across the NATO member countries... how's that single fighter jet standard working out for ya, hey?

Are you sugesting there is no standard, why are the X Warsaw Pact Nations that have asked to join NATO seeking to purchase western aircraft, wpns, etc...is it because our stuff is cooler, or is it they are asked to conform to NATO standards, and while there may not be a single type of aircraft out there, NATO does operate many different types each having it's own niche or speciality....and if you broke them down, there is 2 orgins these aircraft are built the US and Europe, even that they share the same standards for certain equipment inside them.

Suggesting there is no common standard is wrong...And the NATO Gen was wrong to suggest it, when NATO partners have been sharing these standards for years, Small arms ammo, tank ammo, arty ammo, aircraft munitions, sat comms , radio comms, fuels, oils etc etc....

As far as Canada goes we take that one step further and need to be inter operable with the US. as they are our main and prime defensive agreements partner.

My link

The emergence of new threats and measures taken by NATO to adapt its capabilities

accordingly have led to changes in operational requirements for armed forces. These changes

have signifi cantly enhanced the importance of interoperability with respect to material, doctrine,

tactics, training, communication, and many other areas in which interoperability is a major

factor for military forces and the systems that support them. The objective of standardization is

to achieve the required critical level of interoperability with regard to all these aspects.

Standardization makes a vital contribution to the combined operational effectiveness of the

military forces of the Alliance and promotes opportunities for the better use of economic

resources. Extensive efforts are made to improve cooperation and to eliminate duplication in

the research, development, production, procurement and logistic support of defence systems,

primarily through the promulgation of NATO Standardization Agreements, known as STANAGs.

Implementation of STANAGs helps nations to achieve the required levels of interoperability

and to better accomplish their common strategic, operational and tactical tasks, to understand

and execute command procedures, and to employ techniques, material and equipment more

effi ciently.

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/interoperability.pdf&sa=U&ei=ymimT4-XH4TO9QSyyZHaAw&ved=0CBIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEwCW3ajlK5clfes1hCK0SglP66eQ

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.thebolingroup.com/procurementpower/presentations/Moreno_JuanA.pdf&sa=U&ei=ymimT4-XH4TO9QSyyZHaAw&ved=0CCkQFjAH&usg=AFQjCNHpsZHNWLVRAipbvKeyWxwreeIrHA

Edited May 6, 2012 by Army Guy

[waldo]

Qualification of my estimate? I made that clear, everything sans weapons expenditures and attrition losses/replacements……..

still playing with your distraction, hey? Years... you claimed, "over 30 years"... I didn't read that anywhere in the "prediction quote" you offered. Where is it... quote it.

You Suggest the numbers are in “flux” and keep basing your assertion on an average that includes two aircraft we’re not purchasing and development costs we‘re not paying.

in flux? And what? You consider the costs... now fixed? In any case, it's the Auditor General who stated the costs are in flux, given, "United States’ estimates of the future purchase price of the F-35 are in flux"!

In

February 2010

, National Defence received formal communication from the US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that developing the F-35 would cost more and take longer to finish than planned and that the US Department of Defense was reassessing its cost projections.

In

July 2010

, US authorities began another comprehensive review of the JSF Program. This review is expected to affect the unit recurring flyaway cost, sustainment costs, as well as the development, production, and delivery schedule.

At the time of this audit, partner countries were awaiting the outcome of this review

These budgets have since been treated as a maximum by National Defence, yet many decisions that could affect the ultimate costs are still to be taken. Moreover, as noted in paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12,

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

. Estimates for sustainment costs are not fully developed.

Explain the reported 10 billion dollar reported deal with the Japanese that includes lifetime support for 42 aircraft contrasted with our deal of 14.7 billion for 65....

I already highlighted the incentive deal Lockheed Martin is purportedly bending over backwards with... offering to manufacture in Japan. In any case, it's a "potential order" and does not represent a completed contractual obligation. But hey now, in that same regard, just what contract allows you to state, "our deal of $14.7 billion for 65...". Didn't you hear? Harper finally admitted there is no contract? But really, this is you now going back to a highly suspect DND number; one purposely crafted to exclude details, one purposely crafted in relation to a reduced/unrealistic life-cycle period, one challenged by the PBO, one challenged by the Auditor General, etc. You're now back to $14.7 - oh my!

[waldo]

We have NATO standardization policies from the NATO website versus your edited text of the General’s statement from the MSM……….I suppose you can’t provide the entire unedited text yet hey?

I note you're still having difficulty finding/quoting from that NATO single fighter jet "STANAG". You see, the way this works is you need to come up with something to actually counter the NATO Commander's statement - the onus is on you. But, of course, you know this and resort to flailing and wailing about... cause that's all you got! Right? Like I said, count up the number of different fighter jets across NATO member countries... apparently... no one got the/your memo, hey?

[waldo]

Are you suggesting there is no standard

I am echoing the criticism being heaped on F-35 proponents who suggest a rationale for purchasing is a mandated single fighter jet "interoperability" within NATO. It doesn't exist... as your own statement below acknowledges.

and while there may not be a single type of aircraft out there, NATO does operate many different types

I find it incredulous that the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements are being challenged... the guy is leading the show... is head of NATO's ACT. Why, we have MLW member 'Derek L' dissing the NATO Commander, General Stéphane Abrial... for being French!

NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.

"

We do not advocate a single type of aircraft

, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "

We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal

."

Abrial said

interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield

.

[Guest Derek L]

still playing with your distraction, hey? Years... you claimed, "over 30 years"... I didn't read that anywhere in the "prediction quote" you offered. Where is it... quote it.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18899&st=30

Per plane cost = 87 million

Cost per plane with lifetime support = ~ 460 million

So let it be written, so it shall be done.

Lifetime support would suggest the life of the aircraft no?

in flux? And what? You consider the costs... now fixed? In any case, it's the Auditor General who stated the costs are in flux, given, "United States’ estimates of the future purchase price of the F-35 are in flux"!

I base the price-tag on what the Manufacture quotes and what the partners and other potential buyers are planning to pay……..You on an accountant that uses such complex methods a assigning a price tag based on weight of three different aircraft……….By this method, my wife’s three year old Cadillac is worth more then a Ferrari..

I already highlighted the incentive deal Lockheed Martin is purportedly bending over backwards with... offering to manufacture in Japan. In any case, it's a "potential order" and does not represent a completed contractual obligation. But hey now, in that same regard, just what contract allows you to state, "our deal of $14.7 billion for 65...". Didn't you hear? Harper finally admitted there is no contract? But really, this is you now going back to a highly suspect DND number; one purposely crafted to exclude details, one purposely crafted in relation to a reduced/unrealistic life-cycle period, one challenged by the PBO, one challenged by the Auditor General, etc. You're now back to $14.7 - oh my!

So the difference between the reported estimates based on weight of the aircraft, versus a reported deal with a non JSF partner nation are what? On one side we have the reported transaction between buyer and seller and on the other an accountant with methods drawn from Python:

[Guest Derek L]

I note you're still having difficulty finding/quoting from that NATO single fighter jet "STANAG". You see, the way this works is you need to come up with something to actually counter the NATO Commander's statement - the onus is on you. But, of course, you know this and resort to flailing and wailing about... cause that's all you got! Right? Like I said, count up the number of different fighter jets across NATO member countries... apparently... no one got the/your memo, hey?

Again, an edited text in the MSM versus information sourced from the NATO website……..As for the onus, as I stated earlier, there is no STANAG agreement regarding the F-35 yet……..It’s not in full squadron service yet

[Guest Derek L]

I am echoing the criticism being heaped on F-35 proponents who suggest a rationale for purchasing is a mandated single fighter jet "interoperability" within NATO. It doesn't exist... as your own statement below acknowledges.

I find it incredulous that the NATO Commander's House of Commons Defence Committee statements are being challenged... the guy is leading the show... is head of NATO's ACT. Why, we have MLW member 'Derek L' dissing the NATO Commander, General Stéphane Abrial... for being French!

From your link:

Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation

HQ SACT Functions: Consistent with NAC (North Atlantic Council) priorities and objectives -

HQ SACT provides the conceptual framework for the conduct of future combined joint operations

Defines how future operations will be conducted and the capabilities they will need

Takes new operational concepts, from others or self-generated, assess their viability and value, and brings them to maturity through doctrine development, scientific research, experimentation and technological development

Then implements them both through persuading nations individually or collectively to acquire the capability, and through providing the education and training, enables the concept to be implemented by NATO forces

And if SACT was an American General stumping for the F-35, I trust you would cry foul?

[punked]

Derek no offense but we are at an impasse. You keep quoting numbers from a doctored set of books and we keep pointing that out you.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek no offense but we are at an impasse. You keep quoting numbers from a doctored set of books and we keep pointing that out you.

You care to take a crack at the Japanese F-35 deal for 42 aircraft, with lifetime support, for 10 billion?

[Guest Derek L]

Here’s a two part British Doc on the JSF program…….Not to add to the debate, but to better form context:

[punked]

You care to take a crack at the Japanese F-35 deal for 42 aircraft, with lifetime support, for 10 billion?

Yah that number is made up like all the other numbers. The US is not going to subsides this plane, that doesn't mean they wont sell it at a loss however if they do they better be getting some concessions out of it. Then it is a question of what back-room promises our governments are making to get this plane at a price that does not make sense.

[Guest Derek L]

Yah that number is made up like all the other numbers. The US is not going to subsides this plane, that doesn't mean they wont sell it at a loss however if they do they better be getting some concessions out of it. Then it is a question of what back-room promises our governments are making to get this plane at a price that does not make sense.

Made up? Per the US Government:

Japan – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

All aircraft will be configured with the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines, and 5 spare Pratt and Whitney F-135 engines. Other Aircraft Equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems, Command, Control,Communication, Computers and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identifications (C4I/CNI),Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS), Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), Flight Mission Trainer, Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities, F-35

unique infrared flares, reprogramming center, and F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, flight test instrumentation, aircraft ferry and tanker support, spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other

related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $10 billion.

[punked]

I will point out at the announcement Japan said they will cancel the order if the price gets much higher. That sounds like real vote of confidence to the price that was quoted.

I also would point out Japan is paying 240 million for each plane. That seems like 3 times the 75 you keep quoting. I get that though because Japan is getting an engine, software, and weapon systems with their price. Where as the Cons keep quoting a price with out such things a plane needs.

Edited May 6, 2012 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah that number is made up like all the other numbers. The US is not going to subsides this plane, that doesn't mean they wont sell it at a loss however if they do they better be getting some concessions out of it.

I don't think you understand how this game is played. The US will most certainly subsidize the cost of this aircraft, and has already done so. "Concessions" are explicit with any FMS program, something that Canada is not required to comply with, a different form of "concession" to Canada.

Then it is a question of what back-room promises our governments are making to get this plane at a price that does not make sense.

Nobody is forcing Canada to procure new strike aircraft....at any price.

Edited May 6, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

I will point out at the announcement Japan said they will cancel the order if the price gets much higher. That sounds like real vote of confidence to the price that was quoted.

I also would point out Japan is paying 240 million for each plane. That seems like 3 times the 75 you keep quoting. I get that though because Japan is getting an engine, software, and weapon systems with their price. Where as the Cons keep quoting a price with out such things a plane needs.

That ~240 per plane figure includes support………What is 14.7 billion (Our budgeted amount) divided by 65 (aircraft) total?

14 700 000 000 / 65=?

[punked]

That ~240 per plane figure includes support………What is 14.7 billion (Our budgeted amount) divided by 65 (aircraft) total?

14 700 000 000 / 65=?

And what does "Lifetime support" mean here?

Meanwhile Australia delays buying these planes the same day. Hmmmm.

http://defense-update.com/20120504_australia-delays-in-f-35-procurement.html

Edited May 6, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

And what does "Lifetime support" mean here?

That isn’t self evident? The ~14.7 billion dollar figure is one directly related to the costs associated with acquiring and operating the specific F-35.……..Then the ~ 10 billion dollars in additional costs as “revealed” by the AG are sunk costs that we’re already paying and would pay regardless of aircraft type (HR costs, base maintenance, initial pilot and technician training etc)

[Guest Derek L]

And what does "Lifetime support" mean here?

Meanwhile Australia delays buying these planes the same day. Hmmmm.

http://defense-update.com/20120504_australia-delays-in-f-35-procurement.html

Strawman........The Australian budget also deferred funds for army and navy projects.

[punked]

That isn’t self evident? The ~14.7 billion dollar figure is one directly related to the costs associated with acquiring and operating the specific F-35.……..Then the ~ 10 billion dollars in additional costs as “revealed” by the AG are sunk costs that we’re already paying and would pay regardless of aircraft type (HR costs, base maintenance, initial pilot and technician training etc)

From what I can tell it does not include maintenance costs. Can you show me where it does?

[Guest Derek L]

From what I can tell it does not include maintenance costs. Can you show me where it does?

DND's F-35 numbers

I thought I’d provided this link to you already from DND and you questioned the reliability of our Department of National Defence’s cost projections……….clearly their numbers are align with the Japanese, US Government and Lockheed.

[punked]

DND's F-35 numbers

I thought I’d provided this link to you already from DND and you questioned the reliability of our Department of National Defence’s cost projections……….clearly their numbers are align with the Japanese, US Government and Lockheed.

Again show me where the agreement includes maintenance because from what I am reading it seems they are getting for that price what amounts to support for the planes software and what amounts to guarantee on the parts but does not include the numbers we are arguing about. Which would maintenance and life cycle costs. This however doesn't really prove anything because Japan isn't a part of the MOU.

[Guest Derek L]

Again show me where the agreement includes maintenance because from what I am reading it seems they are getting for that price what amounts to support for the planes software and what amounts to guarantee on the parts but does not include the numbers we are arguing about. Which would maintenance and life cycle costs. This however doesn't really prove anything because Japan isn't a part of the MOU.

The Japanese Deal:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2012/Japan_12-15.pdf

The Canadian Deal:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/narrative-recit-eng.asp

And you’re right, Japan isn’t a JSF partner, which in turn means they will pay more for their aircraft then Canada………

Japan ~240 million per plane with support

Canada ~227 million per plane with support

*Pilots and air bases not included.

[punked]

The Japanese Deal:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2012/Japan_12-15.pdf

The Canadian Deal:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/narrative-recit-eng.asp

And you’re right, Japan isn’t a JSF partner, which in turn means they will pay more for their aircraft then Canada………

Japan ~240 million per plane with support

Canada ~227 million per plane with support

*Pilots and air bases not included.

We are again going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That 240 million does not include any of the maintenance of life cycle costs we have been fighting about. At least not from the document you cite maybe when more details of the agreement are released you will be proven right but right now I am not going to infer from what I have read it includes those costs. Sorry. They are getting for 240 million what our government and you say we will get for 75 million. Doesn't sound right to me.

Edited May 6, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

We are again going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That 240 million does include any of the maintenance of life cycle costs we have been fighting about. At least not from the document you cite maybe when more details of the agreement are released you will be proven right but right now I am not going to infer from what I have read it includes those costs. Sorry.

Like I said to Waldo, you can rely upon Blogs and the MSM and I’ll gladly rely upon the militaries and Governments purchasing the F-35 and the manufacturer, Lockheed for the figures and estimates…..time will indeed tell who was correct.

You (and others) and the Opposition wish to separate pepper from gnat shit over already sunk costs that we’re already paying for with our current Hornet fleet, and would pay regardless of the aircraft we choose for political purposes………I can almost accept a pass for the NDP since they’ve never led a Federal Government (or most members served in the military) and as such, have never fully understood the complexities of funding and operating a modern military, but the Liberals are just plain disingenuous over the entire discussion.