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

[bush_cheney2004]

...But at a far greater cost then what we paid, and we both now have a similar number operational..........Ask the RAN what they thought of surplus USN tank landing ships

They were laid down and built new in Australia....not used boats. I don't think Canada has the shipyard capability to do that. As for the Newport Class LST's...they sucked even when they were new !

[Derek 2.0]

They were laid down and built new in Australia....not used boats. I don't think Canada has the shipyard capability to do that.

We could if we followed Australia's lead and fanned it out to the Swedes.....Enough money can make anything possible

[On Guard for Thee]

I know the problems associated with contamination, you’re the one that appears new to the concept….so answer the two simple questions or we're done:

Fuel contamination had nothing to do with the engine explosion of the latest F 35 in Florida. Jet fuel is jet fuel. If it was such a bad element I guess 747's would be falling from the sky everyday. You're flogging a dead horse. Fuel doesn't cause turbine blade rub OR thermal creep. Design flaws cause that.

[Derek 2.0]

Fuel contamination had nothing to do with the engine explosion of the latest F 35 in Florida. Jet fuel is jet fuel.

So you’re suggesting that contamination doesn’t cause corrosion, which in turn can lead to a weakening of metals found within the engine? 40 years you say eh?

If it was such a bad element I guess 747's would be falling from the sky everyday.

You're flogging a dead horse. Fuel doesn't cause turbine blade rub OR thermal creep. Design flaws cause that.

Yet above when I said:

Turbine rub can be caused by misalignment, resonance, vibration etc, but the friction will cause heat

your reply:

But you're right, all those things can cause turbine rub.

40 years you say???? It’s rather clear that your knowledge is simply parroted conversations of others (that you don‘t understand), wikipedia and probably video games........you don't have a clue as to what we're talking about.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you’re suggesting that contamination doesn’t cause corrosion, which in turn can lead to a weakening of metals found within the engine? 40 years you say eh?

Yet above when I said:

your reply:

40 years you say???? It’s rather clear that your knowledge is simply parroted conversations of others (that you don‘t understand), wikipedia and probably video games........you don't have a clue as to what we're talking about.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't be a sore loser.

40 + years, that's right.

[On Guard for Thee]

But you demonstrate you're not quite sure what you are talking about if you try to pass off engine problems with the F 35 as stemming from fuel. Or are you suggesting PW wasn't aware of the chemical structure of jet fuel?

[Moonbox]

Are you suggesting the quoted figure that the Government of Australia paid was a lie?

No, but the cost of two introduction models can be whatever Lockheed Martin wants it to be. They don't need to sell them at a profit as they could contribute as loss-leaders towards the anticipated firm contract on the bulk order. As likely as not, this is just throwing the Australians a bone.

As has been mentioned before, the better measure of cost/unit is the figures from the Pentagon procurement budget.

[Derek 2.0]

No, but the cost of two introduction models can be whatever Lockheed Martin wants it to be. They don't need to sell them at a profit as they could contribute as loss-leaders towards the anticipated firm contract on the bulk order. As likely as not, this is just throwing the Australians a bone.

As has been mentioned before, the better measure of cost/unit is the figures from the Pentagon procurement budget.

Why is that? Canada or an Australia won’t pay the same as Americans or British that are paying for the majority of developmental funding.

[Moonbox]

Why is that? Canada or an Australia won’t pay the same as Americans or British that are paying for the majority of developmental funding.

Nobody said they would. We can probably assume that the Americans are going to get the best deal on cost per unit, as they shouldered the vast majority of the development cost, yet their own current procurement numbers show a higher cost per plane than the Australians paid for their "one-time introductory offer" . I'd say that's a pretty obvious signal that they got a deal, and that LM is trying hard to ensure that the anticipated bulk order follows from it.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Nobody said they would. We can probably assume that the Americans are going to get the best deal on cost per unit, as they shouldered the vast majority of the development cost, yet their own current procurement numbers show a higher cost per plane than the Australians paid for their "one-time introductory offer" . I'd say that's a pretty obvious signal that they got a deal, and that LM is trying hard to ensure that the anticipated bulk order follows from it.

As I said to Waldo one can’t determine if a “deal” occurred unless all the terms were known……With that said, as indicated in the article, full production aircraft are expected to be in the ~80-90 million price range, which of course would align with our budgeted expectations. If we end up paying a final figure within our budgeted price envelope, what is the problem?

[cybercoma]

Anyone who disagrees with Canada buying the F-35s just doesn't want Canadians to have jobs. They hate the working class.

[Derek 2.0]

Anyone who disagrees with Canada buying the F-35s just doesn't want Canadians to have jobs. They hate the working class.

The purchase of the F-35 will certainly have a net-positive impact on the Canadian aerospace industry, both in terms of revenue for the companies involved, followed by taxes…….and of course, high paying, typically union, jobs across the country.

[On Guard for Thee]

As I said to Waldo one can’t determine if a “deal” occurred unless all the terms were known……With that said, as indicated in the article, full production aircraft are expected to be in the ~80-90 million price range, which of course would align with our budgeted expectations. If we end up paying a final figure within our budgeted price envelope, what is the problem?

Like we all know where that 80-90 million price tag comes from. It's pie in the sky projection from LM. Sources outside of their rosy ideas put it at close to double that, with the hourly operating cost being also double for that of the SuperHornet. For a bomb truck.

[Moonbox]

As I said to Waldo one can’t determine if a “deal” occurred unless all the terms were known……

You don't need to have the contract in front of you to see that the Australians paid less for two planes than the Americans (who shouldered the development program) are paying for their own current production models. The most obvious answer is often the correct one, regardless of whether or not you get hung up on black/white certainty.

With that said, as indicated in the article, full production aircraft are expected to be in the ~80-90 million price range, which of course would align with our budgeted expectations. If we end up paying a final figure within our budgeted price envelope, what is the problem?

Hey if the planes come out at, or even near, their planned cost, that's great! The problem is that there's a huge difference between what Lockheed Martin says is going to happen, and what all the numbers are actually pointing to. Your single-minded insistence that we should believe Lockheed Martin and Pentagon projections is beyond dubious, seeing as though they've failed to meet any of their budget targets so far and the delays have put the program years behind.

[Derek 2.0]

You don't need to have the contract in front of you to see that the Australians paid less for two planes than the Americans (who shouldered the development program) are paying for their own current production models. The most obvious answer is often the correct one, regardless of whether or not you get hung up on black/white certainty.

Yes but you need to see at least the highlights to determine if we're comparing apples to oranges.....

Hey if the planes come out at, or even near, their planned cost, that's great! The problem is that there's a huge difference between what Lockheed Martin says is going to happen, and what all the numbers are actually pointing to. Your single-minded insistence that we should believe Lockheed Martin and Pentagon projections is beyond dubious, seeing as though they've failed to meet any of their budget targets so far and the delays have put the program years behind.

Of course only time will tell who was/is correct.....

[Moonbox]

Yes but you need to see at least the highlights to determine if we're comparing apples to oranges.....

The comparison is irrelevant. The production versions of the planes coming off the assembly line right now for American squadrons is the best measure of what the actual costs are. A tiny one-off purchase, essentially a trial-run for the plane in Australia, shows us almost nothing for the cost analysis.

Of course only time will tell who was/is correct.....

Yes, and if you're right I'll be shocked and pleasantly surprised. Too many missed deadlines, too many cost overruns, and too many mistakes would suggest that history will repeat itself.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

The comparison is irrelevant. The production versions of the planes coming off the assembly line right now for American squadrons is the best measure of what the actual costs are. A tiny one-off purchase, essentially a trial-run for the plane in Australia, shows us almost nothing for the cost analysis.

Well no, it isn’t……Does the American purchase, like previous LRIP aircraft, also factor the cost of upgrading the software? Does it include integral spares? What about development? Is the engine included in the price, and on the inverse, does the Australian purchase have engines sold separately?

As to a proper cost analyses, I agree, with such a wide variance in prices, of two vastly different deals, minus the contract details, doesn’t provide enough information……..that of course is what I’ve been saying.

Yes, and if you're right I'll be shocked and pleasantly surprised. Too many missed deadlines, too many cost overruns, and too many mistakes would suggest that history will repeat itself.

Canada, like many of the other partners have a set budget and set requirement for the number aircraft. Well Lockheed and DoD are still projecting that production aircraft costs will fit into these envelopes……Until different is stated by buyer and seller I will continue go with the presented figures, well I’ll also swim against the stream and contended in several years when in full production, a combat capable, flyaway F-35A will be cheaper to procure then a Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada, like many of the other partners have a set budget and set requirement for the number aircraft. Well Lockheed and DoD are still projecting that production aircraft costs will fit into these envelopes……Until different is stated by buyer and seller I will continue go with the presented figures, well I’ll also swim against the stream and contended in several years when in full production, a combat capable, flyaway F-35A will be cheaper to procure then a Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter.

Good plan, because the bulk of the total "life cycle" costs that draw such criticism are not directly controlled by LockMart or DoD contracts anyway. There are also lots of development, recurring, and non-recurring production costs that buyers will never realize, but U.S taxpayers have and will continue to do so. Like the CF-188s that Canada bought long ago, these aircraft are subsidized by Uncle Sam and the U.K.

[Derek 2.0]

Good plan, because the bulk of the total "life cycle" costs that draw such criticism are not directly controlled by LockMart or DoD contracts anyway. There are also lots of development, recurring, and non-recurring production costs that buyers will never realize, but U.S taxpayers have and will continue to do so. Like the CF-188s that Canada bought long ago, these aircraft are subsidized by Uncle Sam and the U.K.

Exactly, all the current partners will be purchasing their F-35s from DoD (not Lockheed directly) through a FMS…….So I fully expect the Pentagon and US taxpayer to underwrite costs like development and continual software upgrades (well not the total cost, but damn near well based on your projected fleet size), well maintaining the partners budgeted expectations…….Of course, partners purchasing the aircraft helps reduce production costs, which of course will be a net benefit for you guys..

Ultimately Canada and the rest of the partners should send thank-you cards on delivery.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, all the current partners will be purchasing their F-35s from DoD (not Lockheed directly) through a FMS…….So I fully expect the Pentagon and US taxpayer to underwrite costs like development and continual software upgrades (well not the total cost, but damn near well based on your projected fleet size), well maintaining the partners budgeted expectations…….Of course, partners purchasing the aircraft helps reduce production costs, which of course will be a net benefit for you guys..

I was under the impression that MOU partners would be exempt from the normal FMS process and associated fees (that South Korea or Japan will have to pay). By law, Canada is not normally an FMS export customer anyway. Cost and price are two very different things, and U.S. taxpayers eat a good chunk of the real costs to remain in a dominant position for "free world" military aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

I was under the impression that MOU partners would be exempt from the normal FMS process and associated fees (that South Korea or Japan will have to pay). By law, Canada is not normally an FMS export customer anyway. Cost and price are two very different things, and U.S. taxpayers eat a good chunk of the real costs to remain in a dominant position for "free world" military aircraft.

In the traditional sense that is certainly correct, but sales for the partners are still administered through DoD as a third party between purchaser and seller…….The normal negotiations through the State Department and DoD were finalized during the intial stages of the JSF program.

Canada, does still go through the standard FMS program when buying directly from DoD though (i.e. C-17, Chinooks, M777, munitions etc)

[bush_cheney2004]

....Canada, does still go through the standard FMS program when buying directly from DoD though (i.e. C-17, Chinooks, M777, munitions etc)

Roger that....guess I was thinking of explicit exemptions granted only to Canada in the USA's Arms Export Control Act [22 US Code 2778], because some defense items originate in Canada (e.g. AH-64 Apache attack helicopter parts, simulators, software, etc.).

[Derek 2.0]

Roger that....guess I was thinking of explicit exemptions granted only to Canada in the USA's Arms Export Control Act [22 US Code 2778], because some defense items originate in Canada (e.g. AH-64 Apache attack helicopter parts, simulators, software, etc.).

The myriad of import/export laws for arms between our two countries at times certainly appear layered in lawyerese and minutia……for instance, I recently purchased several American made ArmaLite rifles from a Canadian dealer, which after the transfer was complete, I could sell the next day to another license holder if I wished….But if I imported the exact same guns from an American dealer, I’d be required to sign a End User Agreement which would severely restrict my ability to resell them without the consent of the State Department.

[Moonbox]

Well no, it isn’t……Does the American purchase, like previous LRIP aircraft, also factor the cost of upgrading the software? Does it include integral spares? What about development? Is the engine included in the price, and on the inverse, does the Australian purchase have engines sold separately?

None of those questions offer any relevant information to the argument at hand. If there are items not included in the Australian purchase, then the purchase price is understated, which doesn't help your case at all. Logic.

As to a proper cost analyses, I agree, with such a wide variance in prices, of two vastly different deals, minus the contract details, doesn’t provide enough information……..that of course is what I’ve been saying.

Sure. The Australian purchase of two test planes is completely useless for the discussion. Agreed. Let's go back to the American numbers then.

Canada, like many of the other partners have a set budget and set requirement for the number aircraft. Well Lockheed and DoD are still projecting that production aircraft costs will fit into these envelopes……

Lockheed and the DoD can't do anything but say that. They are depending on volume to keep costs down, and if they indicate now that their projected costs are going to be higher than planned, they risk potential buyers going with a competitor before the F-35 is even available. There is no reason, whatsoever, for either party to be honest if their cost estimates are fabricated. If they're proven wrong later, they can just say "well it's because this plane is so much better than its competition". Canada and Japan etc will still be on the market for a new fighter, and won't already be flying something else.

Until different is stated by buyer and seller I will continue go with the presented figures, well I’ll also swim against the stream and contended in several years when in full production, a combat capable, flyaway F-35A will be cheaper to procure then a Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter.

For an engineer, your perceptions on the actual effectiveness of economies of scale and production learning curve are rather fanciful, particularly since this is a labour-intensive fighter plane we're talking about, and not a Playstation 3. The idea that an F-35 will be cheaper than the Super Hornet is completely ludicrous, as those are numbers that nobody (even LM as far as I'm aware) is projecting. That, right there, pretty much summarizes your delusional bias in this thread. The magical twists and leaps your mind had to make to come up with the reasoning that brings a plane currently pegged at $120-130M per unit down to $60M is tragic.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Moonbox