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

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps the procurement branch of the DND should spend more time on E-bay? Lots of great deals!

http://knlive.ctvnews.ca/ukrainian-bomber-for-sale-on-ebay-1.1718794

Pretty sweet...imagine bringing that to Oshkosh or Arlington.

The 56th Fighter-wing @ Luke AFB receives its first F-35....March 11th, 2014.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sweet, as long as it's fairly warm and the sun is shining.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty sweet...imagine bringing that to Oshkosh or Arlington.

The 56th Fighter-wing @ Luke AFB receives its first F-35....March 11th, 2014.

Nice...I had never seen the integral boarding ladder deployed like that. I guess the weight penalty is trumped by convenience compared to rolling ladder platforms.

Edited March 14, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

A fighter cruises at around 500 kts, a carrier at less than 30. For practical purposes, the carrier is stationary and as I already stated a dead stick landing is not an option on a carrier.

A slow moving runway on the seas is still better than NO runway on the seas. I was not referring to the speed of the carriers, just the amount of carriers that offer a landing solution in the middle of the oceans. The US has quite a few.

Canada does not even have enough people in the military to man a carrier properly.

[Wilber]

A slow moving runway on the seas is still better than NO runway on the seas. I was not referring to the speed of the cits newrriers, just the amount of carriers that offer a landing solution in the middle of the oceans. The US has quite a few.Canada does not even have enough people in the military to man a carrier properly.

They have ten and they rarely operate together. 5 are based in Norfolk VA, 2 in San Diego, 2 in Bremerton WA and 1 in Yokosuka Japan. 5 in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific. If a carrier launches aircraft on a two hour mission they can be several hundred miles away. Even if the carrier could sail directly toward the target for that time, it could only close the distance by 60 miles.

The French and British do and have operated single engine aircraft off of their carriers. The new British carriers are planned around the F-35 and Brazil has ordered the Gripen for its new carrier. Also single engine.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if the carrier could sail directly toward the target for that time, it could only close the distance by 60 miles.

Carrier based sorties for longer range missions can use so called buddy tanking and recovery tanking with onboard squadron resources. Longer range missions require strategic tankers.

[On Guard for Thee]

Carrier based sorties for longer range missions can use so called buddy tanking and recovery tanking with onboard squadron resources. Longer range missions require strategic tankers.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well it is nice to know that for such a hugely overcost pricetag you do get a cute little stepladder.Looks like you could likely break your leg on it, but it fits with the apparent performance of the rest of the aircraft

[waldo]

not to derail another thread, I've copied over a few recent F-35 related posts from today:

The F-35 isn't a scandal. It never was.

Never a scandal? Withholding documents that revealed the true cost estimates of the program are part of what led to contempt of parliament findings against Harper.

No program in history was ever costed that way before, ever.

It was always acquisition + maintenance and nothing else. Suddenly, it was all about life cycle costs, a very misleading figure.

Exactly - it was always a $9 billion spending envelope......not $45 billion over 30 years, 40 years or longer. Very, very misleading - but very convenient for the faux-scandal crowd.

Exactly. We always knew that it was $9B for the aircraft and $14 - 16B with maintenance costs.

$45 billion over 40 years is an awful lot of money. We should definitely cut out of the federal budget anything that cost that much.

Does anything else cost that much? Oh I know, the CBC!

We should cut out the CBC. Defence is actually a constitutional responsibility.

aside from the fact the Treasury Board rules weren't being followed... that full life-cycle costing should have been included, I've presented many past authoratative sources that seriously question both those Harper Conservative claimed acquisition (aircraft/engine) and maintenance costs; costs which, ultimately, derive from LockMart.

a recent update challenging the Harper Conservative numbers (re: operating & maintenance costs):

Questions Raised About Canadian F-35 Costs

A new report by two think-tanks says the operating costs of Canada’s proposed new stealth fighter could be considerably higher than what Harper government is acknowledging — and perhaps even expecting.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute estimate the current numbers for the F-35 could be off by between $12 billion and $81 billion, depending on a variety of factors and risks over 40 years.

An independent analysis of the program, conducted by the Public Works secretariat overseeing the plan to replace Canada’s CF-18s, pegged the total lifetime cost of owning 65 stealth fighters at just over $44 billion over four decades.

Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia professor and defence expert, says his estimate would be on top of that.

Byers says he questions the math in the secretariat’s report because it bases its long-term maintenance on data numbers from the existing fighters.

He says the F-35 is still under development, but it has already proven that its operating and maintenance costs are about 1.5 times higher than the CF-18s.

Byers says his numbers, which project the total cost could reach $126 billion, are based on figures coming out of the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Washington, which has tracked the program extensively.

He also says other structural costs, such as modifying the air force’s tanker fleet to operate with the F-35, are not included in the secretariat’s public estimates.

The research done by Byers also examines risks such as volatile fuel prices, inflation and a fluctuating exchange rate.

of course, past challenges to operating costs have been met with DND responses suggesting the F-35s just won't be flown as much!..... that they'll rely more on stimulators... and, apparently, keep a hanger shine on those new baubles!

Edited May 1, 2014 by waldo

[Smallc]

Show me another military project that was costed that way.

[waldo]

Show me another military project that was costed that way.

why attempt to negate full costs... the Treasury Board rules were there and not followed. In any case, if you believe the Canadian public should not be made aware of full complete costing, perhaps you should concentrate on attempting to confirm the acquisition and operating/maintenance estimates put forward.

Edited May 1, 2014 by waldo

[Smallc]

Show me another project that was coated that way. It's a nonsense costing methodology with variables that are impossible to predict.

[Smallc]

As for the estimates, they seem to line up with estimates from the supplier, the people we actually have to buy the aircraft from.

[waldo]

Show me another project that was coated that way. It's a nonsense costing methodology with variables that are impossible to predict.

it's the way costing should be done... there is a methodology used with best estimate measures included, of course there is.

[waldo]

As for the estimates, they seem to line up with estimates from the supplier, the people we actually have to buy the aircraft from.

oh my! Cause who is gonna doubt any of the LockMart propaganda... over a decade+ of "over priced, over scheduled, over hyped", with huuuuge problems still confronting development/testing.

[Smallc]

Let's try this again. Show me another project that was costed this way.

Oh, and yes, you're right. We shouldn't trust the cost estimated of the people that we actually have to pay.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

But that's what happens when ping-ponging from "DoD" and "DND" numbers...apples and oranges.

[On Guard for Thee]

And my original comment here wasn't about a breakdown of how the costing was done, it was that those costs were hidden, which is what got Harper in S**t with the speaker of the house, first ever contempt finding hence, scandal.

[On Guard for Thee]

And if anyone hasn't already seen it, the Fifth Estate documentary "Runaway Fighter" is worth a watch.

[Smallc]

And my original comment here wasn't about a breakdown of how the costing was done, it was that those costs were hidden, which is what got Harper in S**t with the speaker of the house, first ever contempt finding hence, scandal.

They weren't hidden. They were never released for any other project before. If they were, show me.

[On Guard for Thee]

They weren't hidden. They were never released for any other project before. If they were, show me.

The opposition has the right to be apprised of such information, they asked to see it, the government did not provide,the opposition complained to the speaker, comittee and the speaker found them in contempt after they continued to hide the info.

[Smallc]

Because the info is misleading. The jets don't cost that much. Those costs are spread over decades, but we all saw the misleading headlines. It's hard to get anything done when the populace is so ignorant.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

Failing to provide the info is against parliamentary rules. Harper foind that out, although you'd have thought he would know, speaking of ignorance.

[waldo]

Because the info is misleading. The jets don't cost that much. Those costs are spread over decades, but we all saw the misleading headlines. It's hard to get anything done when the populace is so ignorant.

what's misleading? The full costs were... when eventually presented (as required)... inclusive of a fully identified qualifier concerning life-cycle component costs. Somehow you continue to ignore the "contempt of Parliament" finding Harper Conservatives received over this!

more pointedly, the full life-cycle costs (as estimated) were always known by DND (by the Harper Conservative government). They had to be, per Treasury Board Contracting Policy requirements, for ultimate project approval - that includes, "all relevant costs over the useful life of the equipment, not solely the initial acquisition or basic contract cost". The Treasury Board had already received those costs... but the onus isn't on the Treasury Board to bring those costs forward, or respond to direct Opposition requests asking Harper Conservatives to present full costs.

[Smallc]

I'm saying that costing things that way is beyond the comprehension of most voters. They think that the purchase is going to cost us more unbudgeted money, when it fact, that money has been included in all future projections. We're going to have jets, pilots, and facilities no matter what. That cost will always exist, and although there will be some variation, will be somewhat fixed. The real difference is the acquisition cost, or $9B.