Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

I will gladly reciprocate once you've provided the like information for the "alternatives" (Super Hornet, Gripen NG, Rafale, Eurofighter)...........for perspective sake of course, likewise a list of international competitions that included the F-35 and any number of cited "alternatives", which resulted in the F-35 losing to any of the aforementioned aircraft............

One would think, if the F-35 is such a failure as you suggest, the cited "alternatives" would be far worse........what with not a single one yet to beat the F-35 in a procurement competition

I'm shocked you aren't prepared to "flaunt" the actual sales side of the F-35! Shocked I tells ya. An ask for alternative options/numbers is just another blatant deflection on your part. One doesn't need to look at alternative option numbers to speak to the JSF sales numbers, right? Thanks for playing not playing!

.

[Wilber]

Since January, the Canadian dollar has been the strongest currency in the western world.

Since January already. Big deal, if you are paying in USD it costs you almost 40% more in Canuck Bucks than it did less than two years ago. Your 100M fighter now costs 140M CAD.

[Smallc]

Was the money "re-profiled" enough to procure both big ticketed items?

Yes, considering that both are paid for as built and delivered:

Chart 6.2 on page 203

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

It's a testament to the previous government that it has to be reprofiled for the third time. You can't spend money on things you can't get around to buying. There's a reason that DND has had to return $10B to the treasury since 2007.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Since January already. Big deal, if you are paying in USD it costs you almost 40% more in Canuck Bucks than it did less than two years ago. Your 100M fighter now costs 140M CAD.

It's more like $130M. In January it was more than $140M.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Or a miracle that didn't happen for the Liberals before them

Yes, they started the program in 2004 and didn't deliver in a year. The Conservatives didn't deliver in a decade.

.......none the less, yet again, you lack factual context.......somehow the previous Government had no qualms purchasing other large multi-engine aircraft on time and on budget.

And other programs were and are failures. It's gone both ways.

and is speculated to be a reaction to this new Government's mixed messages on procurement

Citation needed.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, considering that both are paid for as built and delivered. I know you still don't understand, but that's okay.

I understand perfectly.........how much money would it cost the GoC to replace the Hornets and the Frigates......versus how much money did the GoC "re-profile".....simple question?

As I said (before and just after the election), the Liberal Government never intended purchasing new fighters and frigates inside this mandate.....this was confirmed with their own spending plans during the election and confirmed with their first budget.

[Smallc]

I understand perfectly.........how much money would it cost the GoC to replace the Hornets and the Frigates......versus how much money did the GoC "re-profile".....simple question?

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

Chart 6.2 on page 203

Procurement money was to triple next year as we were originally to be buying planes and ships. It won't do that now as we can't buy those now.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, they started the program in 2004 and didn't deliver in a year. The Conservatives didn't deliver in a decade.

And there was a requirement to replace our FWSAR platforms as far back as the early 90s.......The CC-130E were clapped out when Martin was taking an axe to the defense budget in the early 90s........The Tories were prepared to (sole source) purchase replacements twice, but were delayed by lawsuits fanned by the Opposition's attacks on sole source purchases well in (minority) Government.

This Government has now received the final three bids on the program (both hilarious and telling that both Boeing and Lockheed have pulled out of the competition).........had the GoC "re-profiled" FWSAR also? If the Liberals can't manage a simple contract such as FWSAR, how are they going to avoid bungling the Hornet replacement?

And other programs were and are failures. It's gone both ways.

Moot point, the Liberals have the big boy pants on now.

Citation needed.

Here

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

Chart 6.2 on page 203

Procurement money was to triple next year as we were originally to be buying planes and ships. It won't do that now as we can't buy those now.

Nice dodge........as I said, no Hornet replacements within this mandate.

[waldo]

As I said (before and just after the election), the Liberal Government never intended purchasing new fighters and frigates inside this mandate.....this was confirmed with their own spending plans during the election and confirmed with their first budget.

delayed... shifted forward. Surely you want a proper procurement process in place... surely you want a review of "The Canada First Defence Strategy"... surely you want to have a properly defined going-forward role-requirements statement for Canada's military... surely you want the best prioritization of procurement requirements within an appropriate budget allowance, etc.. Surely!

.

[Derek 2.0]

delayed... shifted forward.

.

......or punted.

Surely you want a proper procurement process in place... surely you want a review of "TheCanada First Defence Strategy"... surely you want to have a properly defined going-forward role-requirements statement for Canada's military... surely you want the best prioritization of procurement requirements within an appropriate budget allowance, etc.. Surely!

I have no qualms with a review for political theater (that is the nature of Canadian Defense procurement), but I don't know that the data supplied to the previous Government will have changed that much in a manner of months............Why doesn't this Liberal Government release the third party findings from the previous Government's review of contractor supplied data?

We have a MND that won't rule out an (eventual) F-35 purchase, a Government that remains within the F-35 program and has paid our next level of dues to take us through to production contract bidding, and a budget that pushes the purchase into the next mandate, when the F-35 is the only aircraft guaranteed to be in production.

[Smallc]

And there was a requirement to replace our FWSAR platforms as far back as the early 90s.......The CC-130E were clapped out when Martin was taking an axe to the defense budget in the early 90s........The Tories were prepared to (sole source) purchase replacements twice, but were delayed by lawsuits fanned by the Opposition's attacks on sole source purchases well in (minority) Government.

LOL - the opposition caused the lawsuits! You're a riot.

This Government has now received the final three bids on the program (both hilarious and telling that both Boeing and Lockheed have pulled out of the competition).........had the GoC "re-profiled" FWSAR also? If the Liberals can't manage a simple contract such as FWSAR, how are they going to avoid bungling the Hornet replacement?

Boeing and Lockheed weren't contenders when the Conservatives asked for bids years ago. Did you blame Trudeau then too?

Moot point, the Liberals have the big boy pants on now.

Yes, many Canadians agreed with me that the Conservatives forgot their place.

Here

So nothing substantive.

[Smallc]

Nice dodge........as I said, no Hornet replacements within this mandate.

But possibly a contract (I never said we'd be buying planes) and definitely a competition. We have no idea at this point what we need or what we can afford with the budget cuts the last government saddled the forces with.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

LOL - the opposition caused the lawsuits! You're a riot.

They sure helped, simply put, Airbus wouldn't have bothered with the threat of legal action if the aircraft favored under PM PM (C-27J) and nearly purchased (twice) by the Harper Government was purchased and the Opposition was muted, like they were after the CC-130J and CC-177 contracts were signed (the later also being sole sourced).

Boeing and Lockheed weren't contenders when the Conservatives asked for bids years ago. Did you blame Trudeau then too?

Yes, there were........granted Boeing left over a year ago, but Lockheed very much so decided not to enter a bid early this year, when they were very much so expected to, having a huge advantage with leveraging training and support through our existing CC-130J fleet.

So nothing substantive.

Do you have issues with reading? Did I not clearly state speculation?

[Derek 2.0]

But possibly a contract (I never said we'd be buying planes) and definitely a competition. We have no idea at this point what we need or what we can afford with the budget cuts the last government saddled the forces with.

A contract? How? They "re-profiled" the procurement funding out to the next decade

[Smallc]

They sure helped, simply put, Airbus wouldn't have bothered with the threat of legal action if the aircraft favored under PM PM (C-27J) and nearly purchased (twice) by the Harper Government was purchased and the Opposition was muted, like they were after the CC-130J and CC-177 contracts were signed (the later also being sole sourced).

Right. Proof forthcoming, of course.

Yes, there were........granted Boeing left over a year ago, but Lockheed very much so decided not to enter a bid early this year, when they were very much so expected to, having a huge advantage with leveraging training and support through our existing CC-130J fleet.

And apparently, once they read the RFP (not from this government) they decided against it. Oh well.

Do you have issues with reading? Did I not clearly state speculation?

If you'd added baseless to speculation, I'd have let it go.

[Smallc]

A contract? How? They "re-profiled" the procurement funding out to the next decade

A contract in 2019 would se no money change hands within this mandate. With the defence review taking a full year, I'd expect a contract after that time. It's now simply a possibility within this mandate.

[Derek 2.0]

Right. Proof forthcoming, of course.

Historic fact.

And apparently, once they read the RFP (not from this government) they decided against it. Oh well.

They have had the RFP for sometime, they withdrew from a multi-billion program, a program that sees us already operating their aircraft, with an existing supply chain and training establishment, after the mixed messages from this new Government, messages further confirmed by the Government "re-profiling" procurement dollars into the next mandate...........

The better question, why would a defense giant spend millions to bid on a program that the current government might or might not go through with in the interim.

If you'd added baseless to speculation, I'd have let it go.

How do you know it to be baseless?

[Derek 2.0]

A contract in 2019 would se no money change hands within this mandate. With the defence review taking a full year, I'd expect a contract after that time. It's now simply a possibility within this mandate.

So you expect a contract, for a program that has three people in the program office and no money budgeted within this mandate........you understand Trudeau hasn't legalized the weed yet right?

[bush_cheney2004]

....The better question, why would a defense giant spend millions to bid on a program that the current government might or might not go through with in the interim.

Right....eventually it becomes a bigger pain-in-the-ass than it is worth. Just no-bid the RFP and walk away until conditions are more definite.

Example: Thales Canada Ltd. got burned last year for a $55 million replacement of TPS-70 tactical radar system contract that was let in 2011....nevermind ...didn't really mean it. Cheaper to pay the cancellation fees.

Sources tell Defence Watch that the radars aren’t expected to be replaced anytime soon. Ottawa is paralyzed with election fever. A decision by government approving whichever way ahead Public Works and DND come up with on the radars, isn’t expected to be made until well after an election, say in late December or January. Then comes the process of running a new competition, which could take months, if not years.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-forces-tactical-radar-deal-with-thales-fails-rcaf-trying-to-figure-out-next-steps

Edited April 6, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Right....eventually it becomes a bigger pain-in-the-ass than it is worth. Just no-bid the RFP and walk away until conditions are more definite.

Without a doubt, it costs companies a fortune to actually bid on various contracts....chalk it up to the cost of doing business, but with indecisive Governments it gets to a point that its not worth it for companies, and said governments/countries develop a reputation..........for example, many of the Arab States and the Indians are terrible to do business with, and this is reflected by their primary source nations......the French (France, until very recently, had next to no bribery and anti corruption laws) and the Russians(that peddle in crap) ........its no wonder that during the Cold War, even though the Indians weren't in the Communist sphere, the Russians were one of the few nations that would deal with them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Without a doubt, it costs companies a fortune to actually bid on various contracts....chalk it up to the cost of doing business, but with indecisive Governments it gets to a point that its not worth it for companies, and said governments/countries develop a reputation...

Agreed....defense contractors often have to compete for new business or renewals, and that means dedicating resources to decompose the RFP, understand government/regulatory compliance, work with supply chain partners, set up program/project liaison, cost out labour/burden/materials/testing, write the proposal cost, technical, and management volumes, then spend more time and money to red-team the proposal for deficiencies or risks.

Sometimes it is best to just lose early in the proposal round to avoid a big and costly headache, especially for fixed price contracts. Cost plus is a little more forgiving, but still no cakewalk. If you win, then a whole new phase of challenges begins with severe cost and schedule pressure.

[cybercoma]

A contract in 2019 would se no money change hands within this mandate. With the defence review taking a full year, I'd expect a contract after that time. It's now simply a possibility within this mandate.

You're arguing with Derek again.

[Wilber]

It's more like $130M. In January it was more than $140M.

So only 30% more.

[waldo]

did rubber finally hid the road? Within that grouping of aircraft the F-35 was intended to replace, the close-air support A-10 'Warthog' has caused a real stir these recent years... lots of budget fidgeting to attempt to manage the continued delay and suspect capabilities of the F-35, ultimately rising to the level of the USAF committing to a so-called "testing face-off" between the F-35 and the A-10 - a capability review that in itself had to be scheduled into 2018 to allow a supposed point where the F-35 would be in a position to actually offer a point of comparison. Looks like the USAF has bailed on that and now formally acknowledges the F-35 just can't be that plane to replace the A-10:

"My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft-requirements document for a follow-on (close air-support) airplane," said Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements.

The Air Force had originally planned for its version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt, or Warthog, as it has been nicknamed. But the F-35 project has been beset by delays and cost overruns and the demands of the counter-ISIS mission have caused the Pentagon to reconsider its plans in the 2017 budget.

The previously proposed F-35 replacement is projected to cost approximately $135 million per plane, while the unit cost of an A-10 is $18.8 million, according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet.

Retired naval aviator Cmdr. Chris Harmer told CNN in March that using an F-35 to fly close air support against insurgents would be akin to "buying a brand new Rolls Royce to take the garbage to the dump."

Harmer estimated the cost of flying a jet like the F-35 to be about $45,000 per hour of flight, while the A-10 costs about one-third as much to operate.

.