F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[waldo]

The dates appear “wrong” in more than one of the highlighted programs……As to an announcement, I do fully expect it sometime over the summer break (on a Friday afternoon)……..With that said, the possibility of punting the selection post-2015 is certainly there…….delay will only hurt the RCAF’s planned transition timeframe, but it wouldn’t be the first time political expediency took the front seat to DND’s needs.

you know those direct questions you claim to answer... just not to my satisfaction? Uhhh, here's another - where you absolutely refuse to answer my question concerning a competition (per the DND Request for Proposal reference that appears in the just released Defence Acquistion Guide. You clearly have a most selective (self-serving) response to questions posed!

And how will they do that? Bake sales and car washes? With the loss in the Brazilian competition, Super Hornet production will end in 2016.….

so you keep saying... as the USN "encourages" Boeing with it's Advanced Super Hornet... as the USN requests an unfunded priority need for additional Super Hornets... as the responsible U.S. Congressional committee funds the next 20 Super Hornets for the USN, etc. You're so quit with all those dates you bring forward with such certainty... I trust this latest DND document won't diminish your date pronouncements.

[Derek 2.0]

you know those direct questions you claim to answer... just not to my satisfaction? Uhhh, here's another - where you absolutely refuse to answer my question concerning a competition (per the DND Request for Proposal reference that appears in the just released Defence Acquistion Guide. You clearly have a most selective (self-serving) response to questions posed!

When does a RFP become a sole source contract?

so you keep saying... as the USN "encourages" Boeing with it's Advanced Super Hornet... as the USN requests an unfunded priority need for additional Super Hornets... as the responsible U.S. Congressional committee funds the next 20 Super Hornets for the USN, etc. You're so quit with all those dates you bring forward with such certainty... I trust this latest DND document won't diminish your date pronouncements.

The Advanced Super Hornet Proposal is varied in both size and scope, some portions already at the demonstrator phase (conformal fuel tanks) and some both unfunded and undeveloped (new avionics, radar and engine), with the option of new builds and retrofits to the existing fleet during SLEP…….

The USN can request unfunded priorities to it’s hearts content, but is also fighting tooth and nail to maintain the George Washington CVBG…..it stands to reason with the potential loss of an aircraft carrier, the USN will have no need for additional Super Hornets.

[waldo]

When does a RFP become a sole source contract?

is this your way of answering another direct question? Don't bother responding; I've had enough of your "silly buggar" act... the 2.0 version isn't any different from 1.0

[On Guard for Thee]

It seems a RFP becomes a sole source when the Harper government is at the wheel.

[Derek 2.0]

is this your way of answering another direct question? Don't bother responding; I've had enough of your "silly buggar" act... the 2.0 version isn't any different from 1.0

As the requirements for the Hornet replacement are currently defined, only one currently produced aircraft meets said requirement……in effect, a sole sourced contract no?

[On Guard for Thee]

As the requirements for the Hornet replacement are currently defined, only one currently produced aircraft meets said requirement……in effect, a sole sourced contract no?

Any bets on whether or not the "independant" report now in Harper's hands gets buried until after the election? He could hide it in the same way/place he did to get his first contempt finding.

[Smallc]

Why would he do that? By all indications, it agrees with the government's initial action.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well maybe because he just seems to like hiding things, especially with regard to this file. But more to the point, everything Harper does seems to be done with one eye on the polls, and Trudeau is ahead of him now, and he doesn't want to lose any more ground.

[Smallc]

He's hiding things because people don't understand the numbers. If they (you) did, there wouldn't be an issue.

[On Guard for Thee]

What is very easy to understand is that having one number in a file and then presenting a much different (lower) one to the public does not tend to instill confidence.

[Smallc]

I'll again ask you to show me one government procurement project presented to the public using life cycle costs rather than purchase and contract costs.

[On Guard for Thee]

Playing little games with how costs are construed is a little different than misleading parliament, and therefore the people. I say again, it's what got him the distinction of "contempt" first time in our history. Apparently it was blatantly obvious to the comittee, which consisted of not just opposition members, that Harper etal were not forthcoming. Matter a fact it is reported that the number they had at the time in their file (secret) file, was about 10 billion more than the one they tried to tried to flog to the rest of us.

[waldo]

I'll again ask you to show me one government procurement project presented to the public using life cycle costs rather than purchase and contract costs.

keep asking - it makes no difference; it's the way costs should have always been reported. But wait, are you trying to imply this costing is the single piece of Opposition requested information that wasn't forthcoming? Oh wait, didn't that costing info come from the AG... the PBO... Just what is it you're trying to say with your repeated "asking again"?

[Smallc]

keep asking - it makes no difference; it's the way costs should have always been reported.

It's misleading when you compare life cycle costs to previously used contract costs. The costing has always been done that way, but it's actually a very misleading way to present it to the public. The jets don't cost $42B...they cost $9B in acquisition, about $6B in service, and another amount in operations, maintenance, personnel, etc, etc. If you're going to use life-cycle costs (again, show me when that's been used), you're going to have to explain them.

[On Guard for Thee]

The engine (all one of them) runs so hot the blades have to be coated with ceramic in order to get enough thrust to at least try and achieve the performance wishes of LockMart. A crack in that ceramic and engine goes poof and one pilot is parachuting his way perhaps into -40 arctic conditions, and a multi million dollar airframe spuds into the permafrost. Or a Canada goose could achieve the same thing.

[Smallc]

You also said it couldn't fly at night. It can. Each problem has been addressed in short order as they come up now.

[On Guard for Thee]

You call that "short order"? How many years are they behind schedule.

[Army Guy]

keep asking - it makes no difference; it's the way costs should have always been reported. But wait, are you trying to imply this costing is the single piece of Opposition requested information that wasn't forthcoming? Oh wait, didn't that costing info come from the AG... the PBO... Just what is it you're trying to say with your repeated "asking again"?

your right it does not matter, it is the law..... it was a cheap trick to induce sticker shock to the Canadian citizens, and it worked...as i'm sure if your wife came home and told you she got a great deal on a car just 250,000 over 42 years....you'd say WTF....

[waldo]

your right it does not matter, it is the law..... it was a cheap trick to induce sticker shock to the Canadian citizens, and it worked...as i'm sure if your wife came home and told you she got a great deal on a car just 250,000 over 42 years....you'd say WTF....

a point mentioned previously: it is important for Canadians to know the full extent of monies allocated to the military. Providing a presumed estimate without regard to full life-cycle costing does not do this. From my perspective I believe it had the required effect - it forced Harper Conservatives to be fully accountable for what they presumed to introduce. It's probably safe to say there won't be any/much 'sticker shock' at the end of the cycle when total costs are tallied...

[waldo]

It's misleading when you compare life cycle costs to previously used contract costs. The costing has always been done that way, but it's actually a very misleading way to present it to the public. The jets don't cost $42B...they cost $9B in acquisition, about $6B in service, and another amount in operations, maintenance, personnel, etc, etc. If you're going to use life-cycle costs (again, show me when that's been used), you're going to have to explain them.

any comparisons I read were with respect to what could be compared... your described 'acquistion/service'. Any time I read the $42B mentioned it was always stated in breakdown context, distinguishing the amounts for acquistion, operations, etc. You keep using those estimated numbers that have no foundation in contractual obligation and no foundation in reality as to what the projected costs may be.

[Smallc]

I wonder what people will think when they sign a contract for much less than $42B

[Army Guy]

a point mentioned previously: it is important for Canadians to know the full extent of monies allocated to the military. Providing a presumed estimate without regard to full life-cycle costing does not do this. From my perspective I believe it had the required effect - it forced Harper Conservatives to be fully accountable for what they presumed to introduce. It's probably safe to say there won't be any/much 'sticker shock' at the end of the cycle when total costs are tallied...

Your right it is important, when it is placed in context to all spending, and costs....the 42 year version should have been explained that this is just a guess, and that O&M funding is already part of DND ann budget....it won't change all that much unless we get rid of fighters altogether.....as they almost cast the same....In the case of the F-35 the cost to procure the jets is 9 Bil, ...you have said yourself tech is growing so fast that Unmanned fighters is just around the corner.....so our 42 year est may only be 20 years and all that much less....but the public is not told that......they see this massive number and say WTF.....based on 42 years which was picked out of someone arse to start with.....42 years is light years for the avaition industry.....

So by accounting for O&M funding in the actual yearly budget which is what is done today 66 % of the ann budget is for O&M , and then accounting for it in the intial purchase price we have accounted for it twice, like i have said before our annual budget for DND would be just under 6 bil dollars as all O&M figures have already been accounted for...I mean we should all be singing from the same page right....

[Derek 2.0]

a point mentioned previously: it is important for Canadians to know the full extent of monies allocated to the military. Providing a presumed estimate without regard to full life-cycle costing does not do this. From my perspective I believe it had the required effect - it forced Harper Conservatives to be fully accountable for what they presumed to introduce. It's probably safe to say there won't be any/much 'sticker shock' at the end of the cycle when total costs are tallied...

Of course it is, and Canadians can easily access this amount via the annual Federal budget………The inclusion of the already sunk costs associated with operating a fleet of fighters though has been used as a disingenuous political stick to induce sticker shock on the program……

Pilots and maintainers will have the same financial burden, the cost of diesel in the snowploughs and tugs likewise, as to the costs from everything from light bulbs to boot laces, all equal sunk costs we currently pay and will continue to pay regardless if we purchased F-35s, Eurofighter, Rafale or Super Hornets etc…or better put, ~5% of DND’s annual budget.

As I’ve said before in various threads, the same uproar with this purchase doesn’t appear present with regards to the National Shipbuilding Plan, which will easily, once like accounting criteria is applied, have a total sum measured in the 100s of billions of dollars………

[Rue]

I have read with great interests the responses. There is no doubt in my mind the F-35 is already chosen because of the constellation of Canadian and American contractors and their lobby groups tied to the manufacturing of this craft plus the fact that the US and British Navies have committed to this aircraft and Canada parrots the US Navy procurement plans as Bush-Chaney stated.

I think this is a case of financial networking trumping the best jet available for the price. This is not about the best jet, its about the network of contractors and their lobbyists behind their jet..

No one has shown me why a Swedish Gripen is not capable of doing the job at far lower costs and not only that offered to up generous sub contractor projects in Canada.

Israel like the US has committed to replacing the F16 with the F35 but the F35's Israel will fly require stealth technology and will have completely different systems than Canada. To even compare them as the same craft is silly.

Canada does not need low flying stealth fighters. Never did. We need long range show your flag patrol craft to enforce sovereignty over the North. No we are not going to war. We need patrol craft.

People are delusional if they think Canada needs an attack craft. We need a defensive patrol craft.

If we wanted an attack craft then its the F22 Raptor and no one can afford them.

The whole thing is a moot point. Harper will wait until after the next election and then complete the contract. He is just waiting for thee next election. His advisors have told them the NDP and LIberals could get votes appealing to anti American and anti military votes.

The bottom line is all air forces needs a mix of craft. This idiot notion you go with one craft was decided by some idiot who thought it was cheaper just like that idiot Paul Hellyer did when he merged the air force, army and navy into one.

The reality is you can not jam everything into one craft and never could and this is why Israel and the US never rely on just one type of aircraft and never have. However we in Canada buy into that moronic notion.

The Israel Air Force today has F15's, F15E's an F16's, each with its own specific capabilities. These craft have been modified with different computer devices and communication systems and radar jamming stealth technology.

Israel used to make the Tsfir fighter aircraft when it decided to go with the F15. The Tsfir was a modified Mirage 5 mixed with US and Israeli technology. and often was mistaken for a Phantom or Skyhawk..

Israel basically merged its fighter aircraft industry with the US's aircraft industry and stopped making TSfir craft although whether it has top secret craft of its own who knows..

However the US and Israeli F35's twill not be the same each each other's or the dumbed down version Canada will get.

Canada is a parrot. Its insecure and simply goes with whatever the US Navy does. You can get mad at Bush's assessment but its the reality we are dealing with.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Rue

[Argus]

a point mentioned previously: it is important for Canadians to know the full extent of monies allocated to the military. Providing a presumed estimate without regard to full life-cycle costing does not do this.

But we don't do this for anything else. When the government builds a road they don't include in the costs how much it will cost to police, plow, and repair that road over the next fifty years. When the govenment puts up a building they don't include the cost of heating, electricity and furniture, not to mention the cost of the employees who will work in it over the coming century.