Moonbox Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 It looks like the Tories are finally pulling the plug on the F-35 purchase in anticipation of the results of KPMG audit this week. It's been much discussed on these forums here, but this is pretty solid confirmation now that the program was going to cost FAR more than the original $9-15B originally projected. This is long overdue as far as I'm concerned and, as discussed in the article, will likely have ripple effects for the other partners of the program. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/06/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-pull-the-ejector-seat-on-f-35-purchase/ Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 It's important for the government to only make decisions after having all the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 It looks like the Tories are finally pulling the plug on the F-35 purchase in anticipation of the results of KPMG audit this week. It's been much discussed on these forums here, but this is pretty solid confirmation now that the program was going to cost FAR more than the original $9-15B originally projected. This is long overdue as far as I'm concerned and, as discussed in the article, will likely have ripple effects for the other partners of the program. http://fullcomment.n...-f-35-purchase/ And when the next fighter is chosen we would still have all the extra 24 billion in costs... Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 the program was going to cost FAR more than the original $9-15B originally projected. Not according to Derek. What does KPMG know anyway? Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 wooo hooo!...well this should kill the other thread at 249 pages! now we can switch the topic to more sensible options, super hornet, typhoon, or rafale...maybe the russians have something to offer at a great price... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not according to Derek. What does KPMG know anyway? So what happens when the government start looking at other aircraft and the infrastructure, manpower, weapons and maintenance costs remain only the initial purchase price changes? Or will we have a different equation for the new fighter, just initial purchase price? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 And when the next fighter is chosen we would still have all the extra 24 billion in costs... Not necessarily. Some planes cost less to operate than others. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 So what happens when the government start looking at other aircraft and the infrastructure, manpower, weapons and maintenance costs remain only the initial purchase price changes? Or will we have a different equation for the new fighter, just initial purchase price? We should look at all the costs and buy what we can afford. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 We should look at all the costs and buy what we can afford. What we can afford, do the job and last a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not necessarily. Some planes cost less to operate than others. The biggest cost is the manpower, so getting the same number planes would be a very close match to the F-35 price that is unless suddenly the calculation method were to change and switch back to the original calculation method where the opposition will accuse the government of trying to sabotage the new planes... If we are to cancel the program we should cancel it for the right reasons, meaning we can find a better aircraft that meets our needs rather then cancelling the purchase simply because people don't like it that the Conservative Government supports it. Look at the potential missions over the next 30-40 years and use the exact same calculation method for any potential aircraft if they meet all our needs and are cheaper then by all means buy them but we need to be realistic about this. Open the bidding process make the requirements well known and go about choosing the next fighter without pulling out of the F35 purchase without determining if there is an aircraft that meets our needs at a better cost since pulling out might cause a chain reaction in our allies only for us to circle around 2 or 3 years down the road and realize that the F35 really was the aircraft that met our needs but since we puled out and others ended up pulling out either it is dramatically more expensive or has been canceled. I know that there are people who are against the F35's wholeheartedly and will oppose them even if it is proven in a fair bidding process that they are the aircraft for us simply because they would not want to admit being wrong, and I know some of out MPs are in that camp. Look at the Sea King's the Liberals cancelled them and then realized that they cancelled the purchase for the aircraft that met our needs yet still refused to purchase them because it would look ridiculous that they would cancel the project and turn around and order the same aircraft because the original order was right. If we cancel we should cancel for a reason other then someone coming with a new report every 6 months and adding 10 years to the life of the aircraft or finding ingenious ways to count more personal and infrastructure in to the bill... Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 checking prices I think it would come down to these two...the Rafale 90-124 million, super hornet 66.9 million, in my un-expert opinion the Rafale is the better plane whether it's worth the extra cost I couldn't say...then there are the russian options, why not, they build good planes and have similar operating conditions as canada.... eliminate the typhoon 150-180 million more than the F35 although it appears to be a superior aircraft... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I heard on TV, that the F-35 was picked not what was right for Canada but more for what was right for fighting overseas, you know,other NATO picks to invade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 We should look at all the costs and buy what we can afford. We can afford the F35's simply because the cost of the Aircraft is the main expense and everything else is already in place as we have the trained crews and assembled infrastructure. The thing is people look at the cost and see 35 billion but once that is properly adjusted it comes down to about 800 million a year which comes from the defence budget as it is and is not added to the budget on top of what the DND already gets. The pilots will still be there as would the technicians and mechanics so would the cooks and clerks as well as the MPs. The bases will need to be repaired and maintained hence the engineers and other support staff add the weapons tech's the supply techs and the dozens of other trades that are necessary to keep the fighters in the air and they will still be there wether its the F35's or Spitfires. We are not adding a completely new unit, we are replacing an existing asset, the CF-18's cost the same to maintain over their lifetime if we adjusted for the same timeframe and for inflation we need to be realistic when we talk about this subject and realize that the overall price will not change substantially unless we buy less planes or more planes or someone decides to use a different formula to calculate the price. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Topaz- I heard on TV, that the F-35 was picked not what was right for Canada but more for what was right for fighting overseas, you know,other NATO picks to invade. makes sense it was hoped that every nato member would buy in, but nato consisting of small countries range isn't as big an issue with numerous emergency landing sites a single engine plane may work, ...but canada is huge landing strips in the north are few and a single engine is risky, the engine quits there is no spare to get you back...the russians operating in similar conditions to us are developing a twin engine plane with double the range of the F-35's... Edited December 7, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I'll have to check back on this as things progress, there are many things that can happen. A little curious to see it though... I'm hopeful they will go with the consortiums suggestion to build an Arrow II (completely built in Canada by Canadian companies owned by Canadians or the Federal Government Crown Corp) , as a first option. (There are lots of options though) I'm very surprised it was cancled before the report though. This is a little upsetting as if they new what it was going to say, why waste the millions getting the report done...? btw when I say consortium I mean the alternative canadian built plane consortium, not the f35 consortium see: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...avro-arrow.html it just has to be handled really well and low cost but functional technology needs to be put into it. They key is making it able to be upgraded as time progresses... and with Canadian technology made by Canadian companies. A lot of modernization could be done for very small cost. This is the scary part "Arrow's basic design and platform still exceed any current fighter jet" over 50 years later... The Arrow II could fly "20,000 feet higher than the F-35, soar twice as fast and would cost less." Total cost of the Arrow II $11.73 billion, Attach some modern sensor suites on these and some genies and they'll take down anything going. Although both russian and french planes could be issued unless intercept rockets or something of the sort wern't also included. or a 360 degree bi-CIWS type system to shred incoming missiles obviously you want to scale down the size of the CIWS. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 To be clear guys, we may end up buying the F-35 still anyways. This is just a cancel of the sole-source purchase and will make it a more open contest. Maybe it turns out the F-35 can be manufactured and operated at a reasonable price, but until that becomes clear, we should not be going for this dog. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) To be clear guys, we may end up buying the F-35 still anyways. This is just a cancel of the sole-source purchase and will make it a more open contest. Maybe it turns out the F-35 can be manufactured and operated at a reasonable price, but until that becomes clear, we should not be going for this dog. Hey they're good enough for the US navy and cost 1/3rd the price, and we've been flying them for decades. Whose sensors are we trying to avoid anyway our own? If we can't see stealth planes how do we fly ours before they get hit? If we can see them why can't other people? Who is attacking Canada by air again? Can't we just build ICBM's if it is about attacking other countries. One well placed 200 MT warhead will end a war pretty fast against most third world and second world countries no air war required. It is scary when the most powerful nuclear weapon made by the US was developed over 50 years ago... http://en.wikipedia....41_nuclear_bomb lwtf. Just think of the effect of a tsar bombina on Damascus and how it would render nato involvement in Syria must less required or one 8 times as powerful. 200 mile kill radius 4000 mile blast shockwave. Done. It might even bring world peace too... send a message, this is what happens to trouble makers.... just plop it down in the middle of syria job done, no huss no fuss. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 One well placed 200 MT warhead will end a war pretty fast against most third world and second world countries no air war required. It is scary when the most powerful nuclear weapon made by the US was developed over 50 years ago... http://en.wikipedia....41_nuclear_bomb lwtf. Just think of the effect of a tsar bombina on Damascus and how it would render nato involvement in Syria must less required or one 8 times as powerful. 200 mile kill radius 4000 mile blast shockwave. Done. It might even bring world peace too... send a message, this is what happens to trouble makers.... 1. No, a 200 MT warhead would not have a "4000 mile blast shockwave". For someone who fantasizes about nuclear weapons, you might want to read up on how the radius of effect of nuclear weapons scales with yield. 2. The purpose of any international involvement in Syria would hold as one of its primary purposes to safeguard civilian lives. Eradicating Damascus with a high yield nuclear weapon would not facilitate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) 1. No, a 200 MT warhead would not have a "4000 mile blast shockwave". For someone who fantasizes about nuclear weapons, you might want to read up on how the radius of effect of nuclear weapons scales with yield. 2. The purpose of any international involvement in Syria would hold as one of its primary purposes to safeguard civilian lives. Eradicating Damascus with a high yield nuclear weapon would not facilitate that. Oh come on Bonam lets not get technical, even though all options are on the table I think that one will get fed to the dogs. OK Mr. Smarty pants, how big would the shockwave of a 200MT nuke be? Doesn't seem right http://meyerweb.com/...ap/hydesim.html as the 50MT tsar bomba shattered windows 500 miles away.. yet this at 100MT has only 0.1 psi at 176 miles. type in damascus and 99999KT These seem dratically under powered. Thermal radiation is listing only at 100km. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ this one does go up to 200MT meh, doesn't seem that impressive I thought it would do more. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) And from the very bottom of the link in the OP: http://fullcomment.n...-f-35-purchase/ Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet. Not the slightest bit concerned……..Since it was never planned that we would make our actual purchase until after the next federal election, does anyone wish to bet that the winner of said fighter competition isn’t announced until late 2015 or early 2016? A cagey political move by the Government that just defused one of the main attacks against them by the Peanut Gallery………… Don’t believe me……..Notice there is no mention of Canada leaving the JSF partnership in the “storey” (And I use such term lightly) And from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ghter-jets.html F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist Update on the government's plan to purchase new fighter jets expected next week The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered. The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week. That plan is now expected to involve a real competition. Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it. CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported. As I said several days ago in reference to John Ivison’s piece and the graphic linked to by Cybercoma, the National Post is guilty of sloppy, lazy journalism. Edited December 7, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 meh, doesn't seem that impressive I thought it would do more. Targeting accuracy is more important than weapon effects (blast, heat, and radiation). Quote Economics trumps Virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Targeting accuracy is more important than weapon effects (blast, heat, and radiation). Go tell that to your homeboys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Go tell that to your homeboys. Go google some more fantasies. Quote Economics trumps Virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Go google some more fantasies. After taking two pink ones, half a white one, 1/4 of a blue one and washing it down with purple kool-aide I should think would suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'm surprised that people are who are on the left aren't singing the praises of the Harper government. They've been screaming about wanting this for months, maybe years and it's happened now. The left wing supporters here should be dancing in the streets, I don't understand why they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.