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

[bush_cheney2004]

... But what's in it for Canada? Why is the Conservative Government so slavishly devoted to this project? The only thing I can't think of is that Harper's devotion to the Neocons goes beyond agreeing with any and every U.S. foreign policy initiative to include arms purchases also.

It's not that complicated....Canada wants a piece of the action in the way of subcontracts, just as it has for many decades:

As of June/July 2012 reporting, seventy-two (72) companies in Canada have secured $438 million United States Dollars (USD) in contracts.

Given that factors, such as required changes to supply

chains or procurement orders, are likely to occur over the course of a

program that is expected to run until 2051, estimating the total future

value of work likely to be secured by companies in Canada can be

challenging. The Government of Canada currently uses an estimate that

is based on information provided by the prime contractors of the

Program (Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney) indicating what they

see as the value of identified opportunities for which companies in

Canada will be able to compete. According to the most recent estimates

provided to Industry Canada, the value of contracts already secured by

companies in Canada ($438 million USD), as well as currently identified

opportunities (up to $9.328 billion USD), is up to $9.766 billion USD.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html

[Guest Derek L]

It's not that complicated....Canada wants a piece of the action in the way of subcontracts, just as it has for many decades:

As of June/July 2012 reporting, seventy-two (72) companies in Canada have secured $438 million United States Dollars (USD) in contracts.

Given that factors, such as required changes to supply

chains or procurement orders, are likely to occur over the course of a

program that is expected to run until 2051, estimating the total future

value of work likely to be secured by companies in Canada can be

challenging. The Government of Canada currently uses an estimate that

is based on information provided by the prime contractors of the

Program (Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney) indicating what they

see as the value of identified opportunities for which companies in

Canada will be able to compete. According to the most recent estimates

provided to Industry Canada, the value of contracts already secured by

companies in Canada ($438 million USD), as well as currently identified

opportunities (up to $9.328 billion USD), is up to $9.766 billion USD.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html

Exactly.........And the true indication of our intent will be known later this Spring/early Summer when our remaining level 3 dues are to be paid.

[waldo]

Super Hornets - at half the cost!!! Oh my... what's an F-35 cheerleader to do? Competing with a paper (F-35) airplane!

[DogOnPorch]

Spitfires go for about 2 million dollars. A bargain.

[waldo]

Spitfires go for about 2 million dollars. A bargain.

how about F-16s, hey? Turkey impatient with F-35 delays, may opt for new F-16s

but hey now, here's one way for Harper Conservatives to make a "graceful" F-35 exit... just strike up the 'interim pursuit' talking point! Public Works indicates it’s considering a short-term alternative to replace aging fighter jets

tick-tock, tick-tock!

[DogOnPorch]

Spitfires are still cheaper.

[waldo]

Spitfires are still cheaper.

and, I guess, so are your oft-mentioned Sopwith Camels. Are they, either, what you intend to rely upon to thwart your Ruski archnemesis?

[DogOnPorch]

and, I guess, so are your oft-mentioned Sopwith Camels. Are they, either, what you intend to rely upon to thwart your Ruski archnemesis?

No, like yourself, I think we're better off hoping the USA can save our rears in times of trouble. F-35 money would be better spent on Natives or some other worthwhile cause. ~~~~bizzzzzt~~~~~~~~~~fizzzzzzzzzz~~~~~~sparks

[DogOnPorch]

your oft-mentioned Sopwith Camels

I know fellows like yourself appreciate cutting edge technology. You seriously wouldn't send lads up in Sopwith Camels...this I can assume.

[Guest Derek L]

Super Hornets - at half the cost!!! Oh my... what's an F-35 cheerleader to do? Competing with a paper (F-35) airplane!

Boeing is quoting a price sans engines, ECM and EW.........Oops:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521226

The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests funding for the procurement of 22 F/A-18E/Fs.

The FY2011 budget estimates the total procurement cost of these aircraft at $1,838.1 million, or

an average of about $83.6 million each.

And:

The estimated average procurement cost of about $83.1 million for the 22 F/A-18E/Fs requested

for FY2011 is higher than the estimated average procurement costs of the 23 F/A-18E/Fs

procured in FY2008 (about $80.8 million), but less than the 18 F/A-18E/Fs procured in FY2010

(about $86.9 million). This may reflect the fact that the F/A-18E/Fs procured in FY2009 were

procured under an MYP arrangement.

The CBC is going to take Boeing’s figures as Holy Writ?

[shortlived]

I think the key of any new purchase is that the jet be fully produced within Canada and that it is a company that pays taxes in Canada, if not produced by the government itself. I think the military jet maintenance people should be able to easily learn to put the things together and manufacture the thing.

The easiest first go would be a modified cf-18, perhaps a hybrid with the arrow.

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[DogOnPorch]

So you figure 'jet maintenance people' would do the building? No wonder it seems easy.

[waldo]

Boeing is quoting a price sans engines, ECM and EW.........Oops:

The CBC is going to take Boeing’s figures as Holy Writ?

classic 'Derek L'! The comparative, 'twice the cost', within the linked CBC article reflected on the long-term operational costing, not your cherry-picked "clouded" per-plane obfuscation. There is no disputing the existing operational costs for the Super-Hornet... half that of the vapour-ware F-35 projections. We've already danced the dance over the JSFail F-35 operational cost projections - I recall/believe you now finally accept them - yes?

as for the actual plane costing, perhaps you'd prefer Pentagon numbers - yes? I expect you know, but wouldn't let on, that just days ago, the U.S. Pentagon, via a U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency news release, gave formal notice of it's intention to meet Australia's request for 24 Super-Hornet variants. The cost? $3.7 billion... which, per the following, would appear to be "all inclusive". Of course, at the most broadly applied comparison level, one could equate that to "72 Super Hornets @ $11.1 billion" (before long-term operational costing). That seems quite comparable to the Harper Conservatives "official" $9 billion for 65 JSFail F-35s - yes? (Of course, no one believes that $9 billion figure - right?).

but it gets better when you recognize just what the Australian shift, supposedly an interim shift given the F-35 delays, really means. For the most optimistic F-35 cheerleader, this Super-Hornet purchase is said to have, effectively, by independent analysis, reduced the initial Australian F-35 purchase intent, by half - from 100 to 50... which, of course, in line with all the other member reduction numbers, affects the overall eventual cost for each production F-35 (raising it, significantly). I expect a part of that analysis is factoring recent news (rumour, if nothing else) that continues to emphasize Australia aggressively moving towards drones. Aggressively, even more so, than this 'official' notice from last fall: Australia moves to buy $3b spy drone fleet

I was disappointed you didn't bite at my other linked reference... the one that speaks to Public Works now openly suggesting an "interim" pursuit to purchase new aircraft (given F-35 delays) - you know, what I termed a 'graceful exit' of JSFail by Harper Conservatives. Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[shortlived]

So you figure 'jet maintenance people' would do the building? No wonder it seems easy.

It makes perfect sense to have cf18 techs build the replacements. Who the heck else knows how to service cf-18 parts in the Canadian military?

The manufacture equipment will also be a nice addition to their tool repertoire for future repairs and replacements. There are laser 3d printers that can make parts these days all you need to do is plug in the cad data. You could 3dprint a whole jet if the printer was big enough.

Wow I just had another thought perhaps the aircrew can assemble the flight seats and the flight assistants can help out too.. you know time for flights, time for building jets make a sport of it. \you know they look at the stuff day after day, you'd think they'd know how it looks, and perhaps they could make some suggestions on the new mod for whats missing.

If planes are made out of aluminum, then laser sinterers. I independently designed a process for fractal mesh laser sintering and induction curing, and directive heat melding. The Chinese have a similar process for what they call conveyor sintering. Making an aluminum shell etc.. would be almost completely modulated. The airforce techs would just need to do some quality assurance and assembly. Although simple low cost robots could be used to do this.

The manufacturing setup costs would maybe be 50-100 million dollars, the only other costs are material costs. It is an almost completely automated process. I would expect you could pump out an entire Canadian airforce in less than a year and have the machines to make spare parts, as well as anything else you wanted simply by inputing a new cad design and assembly set instructions for the robot assistant assemblers.

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

classic 'Derek L'! The comparative, 'twice the cost', within the linked CBC article reflected on the long-term operational costing, not your cherry-picked "clouded" per-plane obfuscation. There is no disputing the existing operational costs for the Super-Hornet... half that of the vapour-ware F-35 projections. We've already danced the dance over the JSFail F-35 operational cost projections - I recall/believe you now finally accept them - yes?

as for the actual plane costing, perhaps you'd prefer Pentagon numbers - yes? I expect you know, but wouldn't let on, that just days ago, the U.S. Pentagon, via a U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency news release, gave formal notice of it's intention to meet Australia's request for 24 Super-Hornet variants. The cost? $3.7 billion... which, per the following, would appear to be "all inclusive". Of course, at the most broadly applied comparison level, one could equate that to "72 Super Hornets @ $11.1 billion" (before long-term operational costing). That seems quite comparable to the Harper Conservatives "official" $9 billion for 65 JSFail F-35s - yes? (Of course, no one believes that $9 billion figure - right?).

I was disappointed you didn't bite at my other linked reference... the one that speaks to Public Works now openly suggesting an "interim" pursuit to purchase new aircraft (given F-35 delays) - you know, what I termed a 'graceful exit' of JSFail by Harper Conservatives. Tick-tock, tick-tock...

Quick, what is 3.7 Billion divided by 24 aircraft? And above notice doesn't include support................The last RAAF 24 plane grab, included support and in turn cost just under 7 billion.....................Doesn't that give you a figure about three times quoted to the CBC, and on par with the F-35

And the "Drones" have nothing to do with their Hornet replacement...........The RAAF, like Canada, is looking towards a purchase to compliment and partially replace their P-3 Orion fleet......

[bush_cheney2004]

It makes perfect sense to have cf18 techs build the replacements. Who the heck else knows how to service cf-18 parts in the Canadian military?

The American owned subsidiary in Calgary that won the maintenance contract, that's who.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/18/harriscorp-idUSN1721589920101018

[DogOnPorch]

The American owned subsidiary in Calgary that won the maintenance contract, that's who.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/18/harriscorp-idUSN1721589920101018

What? Ground crew personnel aren't being moved to work in the factories??

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.

--- Commandant of Rommelwood Academy

[Moonbox]

Derek L, on 02 Mar 2013 - 10:25, said:

Quick, what is 3.7 Billion divided by 24 aircraft? And above notice doesn't include support................The last RAAF 24 plane grab, included support and in turn cost just under 7 billion.....................Doesn't that give you a figure about three times quoted to the CBC, and on par with the F-35

Derek, are you suggesting that the Super Hornet and F-35 are on par for costs???

I'm just wondering...because they're not...and not even close either...

Edited March 2, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

Quick, what is 3.7 Billion divided by 24 aircraft? And above notice doesn't include support................The last RAAF 24 plane grab, included support and in turn cost just under 7 billion.....................Doesn't that give you a figure about three times quoted to the CBC, and on par with the F-35

more... more, of your fuzzy math, hey? Did you really think you could run with this? Let's do some waldo corrective math for you:

- that initial 24 Super-Hornet RAAF purchase you reference reflects upon a May 3, 2007 sale where Australia paid ~$6 billion... AUD! That's Australian dollars - you kind of missed that point, right? And surely, surely... you're not looking to leverage today's AUD-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate, are you?

- that ~$6 billion AUD, at the May 3, 2007 AUD-to-U.S. exchange rate of 0.8254, equates to ~$4.6 billion U.S. dollars, which broke down to $2.4 billion U.S. for acquisition costs and $1.2 billion U.S. for support. Of course, another point you fail to conveniently mention is that the support period was for... 10 years!

- whether you agree with it, or not, the official period being used for the life-span of the F-35 for Canada's purchase is 42 years => 65 F-35 planes, over a 42 year life-cycle period, at a total cost of $45.8 billion (but again, of that total cost, who really believes the F-35 acquisition cost component being used?).

- continuing on (with U.S. dollars): the support cost for the 2007 24 RAAF Super-Hornets @$1.2 billion/10 years, equates to $5.04 billion/42 years. Using a factor of 2.71 to bring this in line with the 65 F-35 number, that equates to a $6.5 billion acquisition cost for 65 Super-Hornets ($2.4 billion/24 <> $6.5 billion/65)... that equates to a $13.65 billion support cost for 65 Super-Hornets over 42 years ($5.04 billion/24 <> $13.65 billion/65).

- so, in summary regard to your referenced 2007 purchase of 24 Super-Hornets by Australia, the total cost for 65 Super-Hornets over a 42 year life-cycle (acquisition plus support) = $20.15 billion.

- I guess you shouldn't have challenged the CBC article numbers, hey? Using your referenced sale of Super-Hornets to Australia, comparing that (projected) Super-Hornet cost of $20.15 billion to the Canadian/Harper Conservative F-35 purchase cost of $45.8 billion... doesn't help your F-35 cheerleader cause, does it? (if you have concerns over using a U.S. dollar equivalency for the 2007 Australian purchase, feel free to convert the Canadian F-35 figure to U.S. dollars! ).

And the "Drones" have nothing to do with their Hornet replacement...........The RAAF, like Canada, is looking towards a purchase to compliment and partially replace their P-3 Orion fleet......

no - the drones (the Orion replacement coupled with the increased 'interest' in drones), reflect upon the Super-Hornet purchase, positioning the Super-Hornets as more than an interim strategy to simply offset the F-35 "delay".

[shortlived]

The American owned subsidiary in Calgary that won the maintenance contract, that's who.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/18/harriscorp-idUSN1721589920101018

Good call on that nationalization bc

They are dead in a couple years anyway. No issue with taking over the staff. They are dead in 2018 anyway.

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, are you suggesting that the Super Hornet and F-35 are on par for costs???

I'm just wondering...because they're not...and not even close either...

Well as I highlighted above in the link from the Congressional budget office, yes they are.

[Guest Derek L]

more... more, of your fuzzy math, hey? Did you really think you could run with this? Let's do some waldo corrective math for you:

- that initial 24 Super-Hornet RAAF purchase you reference reflects upon a May 3, 2007 sale where Australia paid ~$6 billion... AUD! That's Australian dollars - you kind of missed that point, right? And surely, surely... you're not looking to leverage today's AUD-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate, are you?

- that ~$6 billion AUD, at the May 3, 2007 AUD-to-U.S. exchange rate of 0.8254, equates to ~$4.6 billion U.S. dollars, which broke down to $2.4 billion U.S. for acquisition costs and $1.2 billion U.S. for support. Of course, another point you fail to conveniently mention is that the support period was for... 10 years!

- whether you agree with it, or not, the official period being used for the life-span of the F-35 for Canada's purchase is 42 years => 65 F-35 planes, over a 42 year life-cycle period, at a total cost of $45.8 billion (but again, of that total cost, who really believes the F-35 acquisition cost component being used?).

- continuing on (with U.S. dollars): the support cost for the 2007 24 RAAF Super-Hornets @$1.2 billion/10 years, equates to $5.04 billion/42 years. Using a factor of 2.71 to bring this in line with the 65 F-35 number, that equates to a $6.5 billion acquisition cost for 65 Super-Hornets ($2.4 billion/24 <> $6.5 billion/65)... that equates to a $13.65 billion support cost for 65 Super-Hornets over 42 years ($5.04 billion/24 <> $13.65 billion/65).

- so, in summary regard to your referenced 2007 purchase of 24 Super-Hornets by Australia, the total cost for 65 Super-Hornets over a 42 year life-cycle (acquisition plus support) = $20.15 billion.

- I guess you shouldn't have challenged the CBC article numbers, hey? Using your referenced sale of Super-Hornets to Australia, comparing that (projected) Super-Hornet cost of $20.15 billion to the Canadian/Harper Conservative F-35 purchase cost of $45.8 billion... doesn't help your F-35 cheerleader cause, does it? (if you have concerns over using a U.S. dollar equivalency for the 2007 Australian purchase, feel free to convert the Canadian F-35 figure to U.S. dollars! ).

no - the drones (the Orion replacement coupled with the increased 'interest' in drones), reflect upon the Super-Hornet purchase, positioning the Super-Hornets as more than an interim strategy to simply offset the F-35 "delay".

And using Waldo corrective math, what is the per plane price-tag?

Also using Waldo corrective math, what would the Super Hornet Purchase look like when using the same accounting methods and the 40+ billion dollar figure for the F-35? You know, including fuel, airfield maintenance, boot laces, dentistry work for the children of RCAF members etc etc…………….

And using a combination of Waldo and Boeing math, what will happen to Super Hornet support costs once the majority of Super Hornets are retired by the USN starting in the early 2030s?

As to “drones”, like usual you are failing on the subject matter………..The Australian interest is in the Global Hawk, a unmanned surveillance platform………….to replace a portion of the manned P-3 surveillance platforms..........nowhere near their Hornet replacement......

[waldo]

And using Waldo corrective math, what is the per plane price-tag?

oh... wasn't it you that just dropped a reference that focused on "support"? Is this your shuck&jive way to ignore my previous post responding to your referenced link? Just what are the 'Derek L' self-serving rules for when you talk support and when you talk acquisition? I note you've just doubled-down with your reply to MLW member, 'Moonbox'. Let's examine that a bit, hey?

- your dropped link/quote reference is to a (now) dated 2010 CRS report for the U.S. Congress. In that report, the FY2011 flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F Super-Hornet is ~83 million dollars. How does that compare with the F-35A (FY2013) flyaway cost of ~$118 million dollars? Is that $35 million dollar a plane difference what you refer to as (by extension), "on par for cost"? (of course, that ~$118 million figure for the JSFail F-35 is severely criticized for being too low (today) and has no bearing on what the actual eventual price for the F-35 will be... particularly when more and more of the JSFail members continue to delay or bail outright from the program).

Also using Waldo corrective math, what would the Super Hornet Purchase look like when using the same accounting methods and the 40+ billion dollar figure for the F-35? You know, including fuel, airfield maintenance, boot laces, dentistry work for the children of RCAF members etc etc…………….

since you brought up the Australia purchase and highlighted it included support costs, I'll defer to you to qualify just what that support (for 10 years) actually means. I mean, you must know what it entails since you brought it up, right? By the by, did you not think you'd be 'caught' in your attempt to avoid qualifying the support period as being for only 10 years... or that the purchase was actually in Australian AUD dollars? Or, in your zeal, did you just not realize these key distinguishing points?

And using a combination of Waldo and Boeing math, what will happen to Super Hornet support costs once the majority of Super Hornets are retired by the USN starting in the early 2030s?

retired? Really? Is that what your crystal ball guarantees? And even if the USN were to actually follow through on that... are you certain foreign sales/requirements for the Super-Hornet wouldn't be entertained by Boeing... wouldn't be allowed by the U.S. Pentagon/government? You're certain, hey? In all your F-35 cheerleader certainty?

As to “drones”, like usual you are failing on the subject matter………..The Australian interest is in the Global Hawk, a unmanned surveillance platform………….to replace a portion of the manned P-3 surveillance platforms..........nowhere near their Hornet replacement......

are you saying Australia has no interest in other drone pursuits, none whatsoever? Is this more of your certainty?

[bush_cheney2004]

Good call on that nationalization bc

They are dead in a couple years anyway. No issue with taking over the staff. They are dead in 2018 anyway.

No problem....my country has produced over 500 units of this "new" 20 year old Super Hornet, the latest being mostly of the EW 'Growler' variety. Based on previous Canadian military procurement fiascos, I don't think it matters how much it costs until the usual domestic labor and political gods are satisfied. Cue Sea Kings Forever.....

[Guest Derek L]

oh... wasn't it you that just dropped a reference that focused on "support"? Is this your shuck&jive way to ignore my previous post responding to your referenced link? Just what are the 'Derek L' self-serving rules for when you talk support and when you talk acquisition? I note you've just doubled-down with your reply to MLW member, 'Moonbox'. Let's examine that a bit, hey?

- your dropped link/quote reference is to a (now) dated 2010 CRS report for the U.S. Congress. In that report, the FY2011 flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F Super-Hornet is ~83 million dollars. How does that compare with the F-35A (FY2013) flyaway cost of ~$118 million dollars? Is that $35 million dollar a plane difference what you refer to as (by extension), "on par for cost"? (of course, that ~$118 million figure for the JSFail F-35 is severely criticized for being too low (today) and has no bearing on what the actual eventual price for the F-35 will be... particularly when more and more of the JSFail members continue to delay or bail outright from the program).

How does it compare with the “quoted price” in the CBC piece?

As to the difference between the Super Hornet and F-35 current flyaway price, as I’ve said numerous times, the current flyaway price for the F-35 is for low rate production aircraft…………And with each batch said price has reduced and as confirmed by the recent audit, the Government’s budgeted per plane price for the F-35 is aligned with fiscal realities.

Now said Super Hornet price is associated with current USN orders………….What does the Waldo think will happen to the per plane price once the USN stops purchasing Super Hornets? What will happen to Super Hornet support costs once the USN retires theirs? Do you think in the 2040s that Boeing will fund a Super Hornet upgrade program for Canada’s small fleet?

And what members have left the F-35 program to date?

since you brought up the Australia purchase and highlighted it included support costs, I'll defer to you to qualify just what that support (for 10 years) actually means. I mean, you must know what it entails since you brought it up, right? By the by, did you not think you'd be 'caught' in your attempt to avoid qualifying the support period as being for only 10 years... or that the purchase was actually in Australian AUD dollars? Or, in your zeal, did you just not realize these key distinguishing points?

Said support figures will include costs directly associated with operating Super Hornets over the ten year timeframe……….Avionics, engines, training etc……………They do not include indirect support costs like fuel, pilot salaries, weapons, airbase upkeep etc since these costs will be born on the RAAF’s budget regardless what aircraft they operate……..cutting the grass on the airfield or the salary paid to the personal won’t deviate based on the aircraft they operate.

retired? Really? Is that what your crystal ball guarantees? And even if the USN were to actually follow through on that... are you certain foreign sales/requirements for the Super-Hornet wouldn't be entertained by Boeing... wouldn't be allowed by the U.S. Pentagon/government? You're certain, hey? In all your F-35 cheerleader certainty?

Most definitely based on rudimentary engineering and science……….Airframes procured in the late 90s and early 00s will not last longer due to fatigue on the aircraft garnered through their use in a maritime environment and landing on aircraft carriers………There is no “guess work” involved………The original USN Hornets procured in the 80s (same as our current force) are already making their way to the desert……..As such, the Super Hornets procured two decades later will start to join them in the 2030s…….

are you saying Australia has no interest in other drone pursuits, none whatsoever? Is this more of your certainty?

No, I said your reference to their interest in the Global hawk is unrelated to their current Hornet replacement………As their previous Super Hornet purchase was a result of the requirement to replace their ancient F-111s………Funny, even after the USAF retired their F-111s, with a glut of airframes to be had, the costs associated with maintaining the RAAF’s bastard fleet grew exponentially………..But surely that wouldn’t happen with the Super Hornet……….