Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

On 12/31/2016 at 3:49 PM, Omni said:

Nobody in their right mind can afford the 35...

Actually we can.

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, the cost of the F35 has gradually been coming down as production rates are increased and some of the bugs are ironed out of the assembly process. By the time Canada would purchase the planes, the cost would be fairly competitive with other planes of similar functionality.

And lets put things into perspective... the conservative government released total cost estimates of the F35 of ~$40 billion costed out to 42 years. That works out to ~1 billion per year. That's roughly the same amount that the government spends on the CBC in a year. If we can afford ~$1 billion/year to fund a TV/Radio network that has very low ratings, I'm sure we can pony up the money for basic defense of the country.

ETA: The problem when trying to cost out the F35 for Canada is that initially costs were given for initial purchase and/or flying the plane for ~20 years. Then, when costs were demanded for ~40 years, the costs "appeared" to increase. But they didn't....they were just looking at a longer timeframe. Any vehicle is going to cost more to maintain if you use it for a longer period of time. But, it made people think "Oh know! Costs are increasing" whey they haven't been.

Edited January 3, 2017 by segnosaur

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Actually we can.

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, the cost of the F35 has gradually been coming down as production rates are increased and some of the bugs are ironed out of the assembly process. By the time Canada would purchase the planes, the cost would be fairly competitive with other planes of similar functionality.

And lets put things into perspective... the conservative government released total cost estimates of the F35 of ~$40 billion costed out to 42 years. That works out to ~1 billion per year. That's roughly the same amount that the government spends on the CBC in a year. If we can afford ~$1 billion/year to fund a TV/Radio network that has very low ratings, I'm sure we can pony up the money for basic defense of the country.

I'm not sure that comparing TV/Radio programming to fighter jets makes a lot of sense. You may not like the CBC and others may, simply a matter of opinion. Engines blowing up on the runway is not a matter of opinion. And as to cost, I'm not sure I trust any file Harper "released" on this project. After all, hiding that file was one of the issues that got him the first ever contempt of parliament finding.

[segnosaur]

On 12/31/2016 at 3:49 PM, ?Impact said:

I thought the problem with the Hornets was they were not groundworthy. The canopy accidentally discharged while being serviced by ground crew.

There have been all sorts of problems with the Super Hornet. The canopy problems are just the latest issue... Wings that were falling off planes, An air supply system that threatened to cut off oxygen for the pilots, hardpoints that were causing missiles to "drift upwards" when launched. In each of these cases, either the problem has been fixed, or the armed forces has found a work around or has learned to live with the problem.

The F18 Super Hornet is not a bad plane. But all fighter jets are complex machines, and there's always a chance something will go wrong. The problem is when something is found wrong with the F35 it is often seen as some sort of horror story, but when a problem is found with the F18, the F35 critics just shrug their shoulders. It would be nice if they were a little less hypocritical.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2007/05/17/f-18-super-hornet-problems-special-report/

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/oxygen-problems-afflict-297-navy-marine-hornets/

[segnosaur]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm not sure that comparing TV/Radio programming to fighter jets makes a lot of sense. You may not like the CBC and others may, simply a matter of opinion.

Your claim was "Nobody can afford the F35". If we can afford the CBC, we can afford the F35. Both are relatively the same cost when laid out on a year-by-year basis.

Engines blowing up on the runway is not a matter of opinion.

Engine problems have been fixed. (Typical of the F35 critics... dragging up "problems" that have long been dealt with.)

Unlike the Oxygen systems on the Super Hornet. But hey, I guess pilots don't need to breath, do they?

And as to cost, I'm not sure I trust any file Harper "released" on this project.

The costing was done by KPMG, a private financial auditing firm, and seemed to be accepted by the Auditor General.

After all, hiding that file was one of the issues that got him the first ever contempt of parliament finding.

Up until the F35, the cost of our military purchases had never been given for ~40 year time frames. The only reason the Liberals and NDP wanted that information was to falsely make the claim "Oh look! Costs are rising", playing to the gullible people who aren't really smart enough to recognize that using something for ~10 years longer will mean that costs go up, not because your purchase is necessarily more expensive.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, segnosaur said:

Up until the F35, the cost of our military purchases had never been given for ~40 year time frames. The only reason the Liberals and NDP wanted that information was to falsely make the claim "Oh look! Costs are rising",

And they had a right to see that file and Harper hid it and it cost him dearly. And if he'd been allowed to run free with a single source, highly troubled procurement project it would have cost us all dearly. Him in terms of reputation, us in terms of tax dollars. When you come to spending that kind of money, it only makes sense to have a transparent bidding process. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Up until the F35, the cost of our military purchases had never been given for ~40 year time frames.

Just to note, the 2012 KPMG study said the cost would be $46 billion over 30 years (see section 3.2.2 on page 12 of the report dated November 27, 2012 - Next Generation Fighter Capability - Independent Review of Life Cycle Cost). That works out to $1.53 billion/year,  A 2014 study said it would be at least $56 billion, and with all the uncertainties could creep much, much higher.

Edited January 3, 2017 by ?Impact
Added citation for report, including page & section

[segnosaur]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Just to note, the 2012 KPMG study said the cost would be $46 billion over 30 years (see section 3.2.2 on page 12 of the report dated November 27, 2012 - Next Generation Fighter Capability - Independent Review of Life Cycle Cost). That works out to $1.53 billion/year,

.The claim that its $46 billion/30 years seems to be due to the fact that ~12 years were being considered as time for development/delivery. But here's the thing... were we to order the F35, we wouldn't get all the planes on day 1 of the order, but we also wouldn't have to wait 12 years to get them all either. there will be a significant amount of time in which we will have viable squadrons of F35s witin that 12 year window.

A 2014

study said it would be at least $56 billion, and with all the uncertainties could creep much, much higher.

Keep in mind that that particular study was written by Michael Byers, who was an NDP candidate in previous elections. Far from what would be considered an unbiased source.

[segnosaur]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

And they had a right to see that file

Yes, they had a right to play petty politics with our national defense. Doesn't necessarily make it right.

And if he'd been allowed to run free with a single source, highly troubled procurement project it would have cost us all dearly.

Not really. 

The F35 has won multiple competitions throughout the world. (And other countries have managed to run their military procurement programs with far less political partisanship.)  The fact that other countries have looked at all the options and decided on the F35 should be seen as an indicator that perhaps its a better option than its naysayers seem to be suggesting. 

Or do you somehow think that somehow every other military that has chosen the F35 is somehow incompetent, and that somehow only Canada (the country that gave us the Sea King Replacement fiasco and the leaky submarines) has the brains to make another choice? 

it only makes sense to have a transparent bidding process

Unfortunately we're not getting a transparent process... Opponents of the F35 always seem to do their best to appeal to emotion... whether its quoting outdated figures or making apples to oranges comparisions.

And of course now we've gone from a sole-source F35 procurement (for better or worse) to a sole-source F18 procurement, with even less transparency than we had for the F35 puchase. Yah Liberals!

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Yes, they had a right to play petty politics with our national defense. Doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

 

Not really. 

The F35 has won multiple competitions throughout the world. (And other countries have managed to run their military procurement programs with far less political partisanship.)  The fact that other countries have looked at all the options and decided on the F35 should be seen as an indicator that perhaps its a better option than its naysayers seem to be suggesting. 

Or do you somehow think that somehow every other military that has chosen the F35 is somehow incompetent, and that somehow only Canada (the country that gave us the Sea King Replacement fiasco and the leaky submarines) has the brains to make another choice? 

 

 

Unfortunately we're not getting a transparent process... Opponents of the F35 always seem to do their best to appeal to emotion... whether its quoting outdated figures or making apples to oranges comparisions.

And of course now we've gone from a sole-source F35 procurement (for better or worse) to a sole-source F18 procurement, with even less transparency than we had for the F35 puchase. Yah Liberals!

We would certainly be better off to make a choice based on an open competition rather than single sourcing, and especially such a troubled unit as the 35. And you can call it petty politics if you like, but the opposition government has a right to see those type of files. Harper chose to try and ignore the rules. I wonder why?, and look at the black mark it earned him. Perhaps if he would have been honest instead of arrogant.

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, segnosaur said:

.The claim that its $46 billion/30 years seems to be due to the fact that ~12 years were being considered as time for development/delivery. But here's the thing... were we to order the F35, we wouldn't get all the planes on day 1 of the order, but we also wouldn't have to wait 12 years to get them all either. there will be a significant amount of time in which we will have viable squadrons of F35s witin that 12 year window.

Yes, you cannot order F-35's off the rack. You can't make the decision one day and have all 65 planes sitting on the tarmac that afternoon. The 12 years you talk about is not added to the 30-year life-cycle of individual planes. The estimate is that it would take about 5 years from the date of the report until the delivery of the first plane; the report was in 2012 and they were considering the first plane might be available next year (2017). The rest would be delivered over a number of years, and also retired over a number of years. In both cases we would be operating other planes concurrently (e.g. the CF-18s would still be operating until the mid-20's, and something else in the 40's) and of course incurring additional costs for their operation. The actual service life of the F-35 would be 30 years, but again that is an estimate based on things like estimate service hours and if extended other costs would need to be involved like major overhauls to extend life, etc. The point being however the service-life is 30 years for the sake of the estimates.

5 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Keep in mind that that particular study was written by Michael Byers, who was an NDP candidate in previous elections. Far from what would be considered an unbiased source.

Agreed, but also keep in mind that the KPMG report is now going on 5 years old and becoming less and less valid. It also made it very clear these are estimates based on what was known at the time and could change, especially the further out you went through the cycle. If history has taught us anything, costs increase (dramatically) over time. The report does consider some inflation for operating costs over the life time, and now we have to consider an additional 5 years (or more) of inflation. Yes, Byers might be considered a biased source, but that does not make him wrong. That is why I mentioned his $56 billion estimate, because it is certainly within the realm of what the KPMG report was suggesting, I did not even quote his $126 billion figure.

4 hours ago, segnosaur said:

And of course now we've gone from a sole-source F35 procurement (for better or worse) to a sole-source F18 procurement, with even less transparency than we had for the F35 puchase. Yah Liberals!

I don`t think anyone is happy about the situation, but what do you suggest when the Conservatives dragged their feet for 9 years. An open and transparent competition takes time, and the current fleet of CF-18s cannot meet our obligations to NORAD and NATO. After all the problems early on with the F-35 acquisition, Harper finally agreed to an open competition in 2012. The problem is however he did absolutely nothing after that point, when the going got tough he walked away.

[Army Guy]

I

Quote

don`t think anyone is happy about the situation, but what do you suggest when the Conservatives dragged their feet for 9 years. An open and transparent competition takes time, and the current fleet of CF-18s cannot meet our obligations to NORAD and NATO. After all the problems early on with the F-35 acquisition, Harper finally agreed to an open competition in 2012. The problem is however he did absolutely nothing after that point, when the going got tough he walked away.

Current fleet of F-18's can and are meeting all obligations according to DND, but then again what do they know.....the government would know more than the guys operating them....As to an open competition, i wonder if the guys at DND know , since the project current sits at what 4 or 5....due to past and current government putting the project on hold....until election has been sorted out..still waiting....but atlas liberals decide to force an interim aircraft through instead, stating that Our current CF-18 aircraft no longer meet all our defense agreements, days later DND responds with Yes the will, out until 2025 in fact...

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Current fleet of F-18's can and are meeting all obligations according to DND

Yes, DND projected they could cover the gap until the F-35s were delivered. They made that projection back in 2012 when the KPMG report came out, and it projected that we would be taking delivery of the first F-35's this year. Now 5 years later and the government sat on its butt and did nothing so that projection no longer holds true.

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, DND projected they could cover the gap until the F-35s were delivered. They made that projection back in 2012 when the KPMG report came out, and it projected that we would be taking delivery of the first F-35's this year. Now 5 years later and the government sat on its butt and did nothing so that projection no longer holds true.

 

Ahh no, DND said our current legacy fleet could maintain our current commitments through ~2025 (2030 with greater risk and costs) with the now most recent life extension program, allowing the GoC to select a new fighter in the early 2020s, and allow ~3-4  years transition to a new type......

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Ahh no, DND said our current legacy fleet could maintain our current commitments through ~2025 (2030 with greater risk and costs) with the now most recent life extension program, allowing the GoC to select a new fighter in the early 2020s, and allow ~3-4  years transition to a new type......

Thanks Derek, Impact, all the sources and posts are in the other F-35 topic. it should make an good read.

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Army Guy said:

Thanks Derek, Impact, all the sources and posts are in the other F-35 topic. it should make an good read.

 

Exactly, they have been posted numerous times over the years in the various threads........but once more, this was discussed when the Harper Government decided to further life extend them over two years ago.

[segnosaur]

On 1/3/2017 at 5:39 AM, Omni said:

We would certainly be better off to make a choice based on an open competition rather than single sourcing,

While I'm not necessarily against open competitions, remember that they are not perfect.

- They can be rigged; Canada's selection of the Cyclone as the replacement for the Sea King is probably an example of that

- They cost time and money

If there are multiple options and one choice is obviously superior then running a competition becomes a relatively pointless exercise.

And you can call it petty politics if you like, but the opposition government has a right to see those type of files.

Perhaps they did. And perhaps I have the right to post nude pictures of myself on the internet.

The fact that someone has a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should do something.

Harper chose to try and ignore the rules. I wonder why?

I think its pretty obvious why... because people in the anti-F35 brigade would look at the higher costs associated with a longer time frame, take that number out of context, and falsely claim "Look! Costs are ballooning!"

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The fact that someone has a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should do something.

The fact that that right exists in this case, the government had an obligation to fulfill the request but chose to ignore it, hence the contempt finding.

 

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

think its pretty obvious why... because people in the anti-F35 brigade would look at the higher costs associated with a longer time frame, take that number out of context, and falsely claim "Look! Costs are ballooning!"

By all accounts the costs were ballooning, which is maybe why Harper wanted to keep the file close by.

[segnosaur]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:38 AM, ?Impact said:

Agreed, but also keep in mind that the KPMG report is now going on 5 years old and becoming less and less valid. It also made it very clear these are estimates based on what was known at the time and could change, especially the further out you went through the cycle. If history has taught us anything, costs increase (dramatically) over time.

If/when we purchase new planes, we will likely have the initial costs (plus costs for for spare parts and fixes to any initial problems) set out at the beginning.

In other words, if we sign a contract for the F35, the costs of all the planes will likely be known before the first plane rolls off the assembly line.

The report does consider some inflation for operating costs over the life time, and now we have to consider an additional 5 years (or more) of inflation. Yes, Byers might be considered a biased source, but that does not make him wrong.

I think in this case inflation is irrelevant; costs tend to be adjusted to a baseline year.

Re: Liberals buying new F18 super hornets with no competition...

An open and transparent competition takes time, and the current fleet of CF-18s cannot meet our obligations to NORAD and NATO.

As has been mentioned before... our current fleet was more than capable of meeting our obligations. The reason the Liberals are claiming we don't have enough now is because they've gone and changed the way our planes are allocated. But none of our allies were complaining there was a problem. It was a manufactured excuse by the Liberals.

After all the problems early on with the F-35 acquisition, Harper finally agreed to an open competition in 2012. The problem is however he did absolutely nothing after that point, when the going got tough he walked away.

Harper did not do as well as I had hoped when it came to military procurement. (And its not just the F35... after an early increase in military funding he ended up letting our finding lag again.) In a way, its understandable to be a bit hesitant, given the Oppositions ability to raise a stink about the military.

But, the Liberals are in charge now. Its their issue. The air force said that our current fleet would last until ~2025... more than enough time to run a competition, select a plane, and get them delivered if the Liberals started acting early in their mandate. But they haven't yet, have they. Instead, they are wasting time trying to justify the purchase of new F18s. They've taken what was an issue of concern under the conservatives (planes that will need to be replaced in ~ 1 decade) and turning it into an emergency (planes need to be replaced in a couple of years.)

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

ICurrent fleet of F-18's can and are meeting all obligations according to DND, but then again what do they know.....

 

They also know that the current fleet's sorties/hours for training have been cut drastically to extend service life, impacting pilot qualifications and readiness.   Can't do everything in a simulator and remain proficient.  

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/tighter-budgets-prompt-air-force-to-reduce-flying-times

Edited January 5, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Can't do everything in a simulator and remain proficient.  

Today's technology will allow a pilot to do more things in a simulator than you would ever dare try in a real aircraft.

[Army Guy]

No the fact remains that the opposition where playing with a political football, , with one objective to delay this project, and keep the F-35 from being purchased.....you can talk all you want about rights, But when you boil it down, Liberals and NDP along with the cons....are responsible for this project being stalled, now and for the near future.... They are responsible for Canadians forced to fly in jets well over 30 years old.....One day soon someone will have the balls to purchases something, hopefully it will be a fighter that is 5 th generation.....but as we have seen in the past, they will buy something that will just barely do the job...

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Today's technology will allow a pilot to do more things in a simulator than you would ever dare try in a real aircraft.

 

You should see what people can do with a Sony PS4 or Microsoft XBox too.

A pilot cannot be type qualified based on only simulator training.  

[Omni]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

You should see what people can do with a Sony PS4 or Microsoft XBox too.

A pilot cannot be type qualified based on only simulator training.  

Oh yes they can. 

[segnosaur]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

The fact that that right exists in this case, the government had an obligation to fulfill the request but chose to ignore it, hence the contempt finding.

Not to mention the fact that the Liberals and NDP realized that they can score some cheap political points by engaging in such shenanigans.

I guess scoring cheap political points is a good thing if its your side that manages to do it.

think its pretty obvious why... because people in the anti-F35 brigade would look at the higher costs associated with a longer time frame, take that number out of context, and falsely claim "Look! Costs are ballooning!"

By all accounts the costs were ballooning

Errr... no they weren't.

Now, it is true... the F35 was initially envisioned as a low cost plane along the lines of the F16, and its costs are higher than initially planned.

But that is irrelevant. The costs (as the planned purchase laid out) would have been relatively fixed. Any costs due to development problems were already factored in to the purchase price (as they would be whenever we purchase any plane.)

 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

I guess scoring cheap political points is a good thing if its your side that manages to do it.

 

Quote

Yeah I don't think defying an order from the speaker of the house has anything to do with cheap political points. But Harper has now earned the dubious distinction.

 

4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Now, it is true... the F35 was initially envisioned as a low cost plane along the lines of the F16, and its costs are higher than initially planned.

 

Not only have the costs gone through the roof, look at how far behind the program has become.