On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Actually, the F-35C will start carrier sea trials in October after its tailhook was modified to better catch the arresting wire. Deliveries of aircraft variants continue out of the Fort Worth plant...well over 100 units so far. Canada's future order will go down this same line: Ah, sorry, we need new planes by 2020, the F 35 won't make it. Harper got caught lieing about costs so he hid under the rug and created an independant review panel. We'll see what comes of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Ah, sorry, we need new planes by 2020, the F 35 won't make it. Harper got caught lieing about costs so he hid under the rug and created an independant review panel. We'll see what comes of that. It is no secret that Canada is vexed by even the simplest of military procurements....why should it be any different this time ? PM Harper actually moved the needle in the right direction for heavy airlift and rotary winged aircraft (after now famous fiascos). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 It is no secret that Canada is vexed by even the simplest of military procurements....why should it be any different this time ? PM Harper actually moved the needle in the right direction for heavy airlift and rotary winged aircraft (after now famous fiascos). Yes we do get a bit "vexed" by having our taxes spent on stuff that doesn't work very well. that's why we prefer to have a look see of what's available before we open the wallet. Harper seemed to not understand that when he entered into the F35 fiasco. And it sure came back to bite him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Yes we do get a bit "vexed" by having our taxes spent on stuff that doesn't work very well. that's why we prefer to have a look see of what's available before we open the wallet. Harper seemed to not understand that when he entered into the F35 fiasco. And it sure came back to bite him. Huh ? It wasn't PM Harper who started Canada's role as a Tier 3 partner in the JSF program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Huh ? It wasn't PM Harper who started Canada's role as a Tier 3 partner in the JSF program. Did you not understand what I just wrote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Did you not understand what I just wrote? Yes...it is not clear that you know Canada's complete history for the JSF program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Yes...it is not clear that you know Canada's complete history for the JSF program. The findings of the independant review panel are due out soon. Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 The findings of the independant review panel are due out soon. Stay tuned. Great...let the political side-show continue as long as anybody wants. But "at the end of the day", Canada will procure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Great...let the political side-show continue as long as anybody wants. But "at the end of the day", Canada will procure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I didn't know you were on that independant panel. In any case I bet it's SuperHornet. Too many question marks around JSF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I bet it's the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I didn't know you were on that independant panel. In any case I bet it's SuperHornet. Too many question marks around JSF. Not likely, as the Boeing supplier base for long lead items is shutting down now for Super Hornet production. They may be able to stretch production barely into 2017 if slowed to a snail's pace. Canada always waits until very late in the game, and this has removed options from the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Not likely, as the Boeing supplier base for long lead items is shutting down now for Super Hornet production. They may be able to stretch production barely into 2017 if slowed to a snail's pace. Canada always waits until very late in the game, and this has removed options from the table. Boeing is shutting down are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I didn't know you were on that independant panel. In any case I bet it's SuperHornet. Too many question marks around JSF. I'd be genuinely shocked if it ends up being the SuperHornet. It only seems to be on the list, so you can say you had a list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I'd be genuinely shocked if it ends up being the SuperHornet. It only seems to be on the list, so you can say you had a list. Yes but you see after all the political fallout Harper had to hand it over to a panel and hopefully he doesn't control that panel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Yes but you see after all the political fallout Harper had to hand it over to a panel and hopefully he doesn't control that panel. Even if it ends up being a different government making the decisions by the time they get around to it, I'll still be shocked if we end up buying more Hornets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Even if it ends up being a different government making the decisions by the time they get around to it, I'll still be shocked if we end up buying more Hornets. Well one of th4 main problems is LockMart can't provide by the time we need. Too many "back to the drawing board" items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Yes but you see after all the political fallout Harper had to hand it over to a panel and hopefully he doesn't control that panel. What makes you think the panel will come to a different decision than the governments the world over who selected the aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 What makes you think the panel will come to a different decision than the governments the world over who selected the aircraft. The fact that many of those gov's have backed away either totally or in large part due to technical glitches and out of control budget overruns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 The fact that many of those gov's have backed away either totally or in large part due to technical glitches and out of control budget overruns. None have backed away. Not even one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 None have backed away. Not even one. Are you kidding? Canada is still not sure what it's doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Canada has not backed away from the aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) None have backed away. Not even one. http://www.wired.com/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/ This was back in 2012 and sums up the frustrations many are having with this. If cuts do occur, the U.S. will be in good company. Australia, Canada and Japan have already begun backing away from the troubled JSF as the new plane has gradually exceeded their budgets. For these countries, alternatives include the Super Hornet and an upgraded F-15 from Boeing, Lockheed’s new F-16V and the European Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen fighters. But so far the U.S. military prefers the F-35, even if the stealthy jet is more than a decade late, twice as expensive as originally projected and available in fewer numbers. “We will remain committed to the long-term success of the F-35 program,” Air Combat Command asserted. As the plane continues to run up costs, something will need to be done. Either we keep dumping money into it, or we reduce the number of aircraft in the purchase. Actually, looks like both have been done. I know one country has backed out of the deal. But I cannot find it... Another from 2012, showing the USA cannot even afford their own plane. http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/F_35 Consider the case of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter program. The Obama Pentagon has reduced the 2013 purchase of Lightnings from 42 to 29 and reduced the planned five-year buy by more than 100 aircraft. This will drive the cost of each F-35 up, yet again; the development costs of the plane remain the same regardless. And because the JSF program has been an international effort since its conception, Obama’s decision increases the cost for everyone. ----- The consequences could be felt most critically in the Pacific. Proliferating the F-35 among America's Pacific partners — traditional allies like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore — and potential new ones such as India — is a sine qua non of any meaningful military retrenchment in the region. But already Australia, arguably our closest ally, is on the verge of backing out. The Aussies had agreed to buy at least 100 F-35s. A Pacific "pivot" without the Lightning would be a fizzle. Italy and the UK backed out of acquiring the F-35B variant. So the countries that are involved are reducing the numbers they are able to afford because of the overruns in costs of this technologically problematic aircraft. Edited May 4, 2014 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 Stealth maybe a total scam anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 It's not ADDED to the cost of the initial purchase. You're not understanding the rationale behind lifecycle costing. It's a commitment by the government to maintain a certain level of funding for the DND for the life of the equipment. Unless they scrap them early. Parliament wanted to know how much needed to be committed to the DND over the life of the vehicles. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Every dollar that goes to these doesn't go to something else unless taxes are raised because, as you pointed out, DND will require the money. I'm misunderstanding the life cycle costs....more like the rest of the country is misunderstanding the whole concept as well.That includes the media....which repeatily tout the cost for new F-35 is over 44 bil....when in reality the total cost to put CF-35 on our airforce bases is 9 bil, that is the additional cost to tax payers( payable to lockmart).....the O&M portion comes out of DND ann budget and would be the same if we operated F-18 or F-35 or any other modern jet fighter. ( which includes wages for pilots, maint crew, fuel etc etc) and is based over a 42 year space....and while this end all figure is a nice to know for planning purpose, it Has nothing to do with the intial purchase of these fighters.....it is the cost of having Fighter Aircraft. As i stated before the life cycle costs are being mis represented and are being touted as the price of the contract and project.... which is inducing sticker shock to the Canadian public....Below is just one source of media, there are dozens that are using that 44 bil dollar figure.... Parliment and treasury know exactly the break down of DND budget, of each piece of equipment DND owns. and it is required to know how much over the life cycle , but it is not the cost of this project....O&M costs are already captured, such as pilots& maint crew wages....fuel costs, etc etc these expenses are already taken into account yearly..... "They've demonstrated their incompetence in a $40-billion-plus contract." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tories-misled-canadians-on-f-35-opposition-mps-charge-1.1148921 Below is link discribes everything that everyone needs to know about pricing and costs for this project....Yes it is from DND.. http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/about-reports-pubs/ngfc-annual-update-2012.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 That's right. Most of that $44B is the fixed cost of having 48 operational combat fighters. To say these particular fighters cost that much is very misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.