F35

There is never cost certainty in many purchases especially big ones. Ever built a house, custom car, custom motorcycle, business or done a large renovation? Im building a pool and the costs have gone all over the place and I'm sure there will be more as we go along. Changes,upgrades, downgrades, unforeseen problems. On and on.

yeah, if i'm joe blow small business, not answerable to shareholders (aka, taxpayers) then maybe that works.

but in a multi-billion dollar business, contracts are tendered, due diligence takes place.

and on and on. . .

this is our government, not a pool or bike business. . .this is a massive contract where if we choose wrong, we really don't get a chance for a do-over. . .we need to get it right the first time. we do that by making accurate assessments of our actual needs and not getting sold a bill of goods.

the plane just simply doesn't do what it was promised. if and when that happens (the plane meets promised performance), it will be many years later than budgeted for (delays add more cost) and will be far more expensive than what was guaranteed to the canadian people.

here is the government basically admitting there was not enough due diligence or transparency in the first place:
"Funding will remain frozen and Canada will not purchase new aircraft until further due diligence, oversight and transparency is applied to the process of replacing the Canadian Forces' aging CF-18 fleet," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

by freezing funding when all experts clearly know that the costs are only going up means that we aren't going to end up with 65 jets. it will be significantly less than that, especially if they insist on working with wildly lowball cost estimates. what good does replacing 80 cf-16s with 35 jsf's really do?



 
There is never cost certainty in many purchases especially big ones. Ever built a house, custom car, custom motorcycle, business or done a large renovation? Im building a pool and the costs have gone all over the place and I'm sure there will be more as we go along. Changes,upgrades, downgrades, unforeseen problems. On and on.

btw, i have sub-contracted out plumbers, framing and drywallers, flooring guys, electricians, landscapers, and painters on a renovation before, and had a pool built.

i did my due diligence with each one, got cost certainty in the form of estimates, and they all delivered on time and on budget. when they didn't deliver on time or on budget, they ate the overages.

for this reason, and others, i don't think your comparison is analogous.
 
what good does replacing 80 cf-16s with 35 jsf's really do?

....dude, you were doing pretty good till here.

They are done. Thats it. Airframes can not be operated past their life expectance without fatality.

When we bought F-18 we purchased a multi roll fighter that technically was built to be launched from an aircraft carrier for naval operations.

The American F-18's went through four major upgrades IE: F-18E

We kept F-18A to the point where we couldn't see or hear any of our allies aircraft any more.

It had one upgrade to get that sorted and thats it.

You can't shortcut anything in the aero industry. Every part has a life/time span and when it's up it's up.

You kill people when you run it any longer than it was intended.
 
Guys, he hired plumbers and landscapers... that means he's already an expert on military procurements and multi-billion dollar jet projects!
 
And to you I'm in with the Pro's?

Nowhere have I said I am on board with F-35

But, new tech is is always unproven in it's development stage. It's not proven until it downs it's first real target. So, while there are issues that's completely normal. prototype motorcycles are unproven and go through development issues until the first one hits the showroom and even then, CBR1000RR, nice bike, too bad it couldn't keep oil south of the rings. Ducati 1098, nice bike, too bad it couldn't keep from stalling and locking the back wheel randomly after it was hot.....

the difference here is that it's not a 20k superbike. . .it's a 145b+ jet, that is going into production concurrent with its development. they are testing as they are rolling off the line. and it is failing miserably because their computer-based testing is not meeting with real-world successes.

every failure is an expensive re-design for future models, and an expensive fix for in-service models.

showroom models, as you put it, are already available, and none of them meet the criteria supposedly established by the dnd and harper government.

Especially when the government HAS made very poor rushed decisions influenced by outside sources in the past.

Make mistakes sure, but learn from them.


afong56: I am most interested in determining for my self if this is the right purchase. Your concerns are valid but to tell the truth, nothing is coming up as an option to the F-35 at this time.

If you can think of anything that can compete, that we share Security with I would love to hear what that is.

Understand.

US CAN GBR is the level that we share everything with.

US CAN GB AUS NZ is the next level of security/interoperability.

Outside that we can't buy/share/use.

We require a long range, high speed airframe capable of engaging air and ground targets. It doesn't have to be the best possible dogfighter since that is 1% of it's roll but it has to be able to be able to get to it's target and show enough force that the target thinks it's time to leave. Be it a fighter, unknown aircraft or 1500 ton trawler.

We aren't buying dogfighters. If we were we would buy F-15 SU-37 type air superiority fighters and put the F-35s in the ground like lawn darts.

i have already asked the big stumpers for the harper line and the f35 what roles they see the jets being used for, and got no response.

i too would like an accurate assessment of whether or not the f35 is the one, especially comparing the actual capabilities (not the lockheed martin claims) of the f35 with the roles that rcaf would actually use them for.

case in point: the f35 has poor range as a combat fighter (about 600 miles) which is compounded by the fact that it cannot midair refuel with our existing fleet of tanker planes. that is an additional cost in the hundreds of millions that no one has talked about. or the fact that the f35 we've signed on for apparently cannot land on the shorter runways that exist in canada's north.

so how is the f35 going to be our security in this nascent arctic sovereignty issue if it will be stuck operating below the permafrost line?

it's not the long-range jet you desire. furthermore, in recent tests, it hit mach 1.6 but caused so much heat damage that all further tests have been restricted to mach 1. . .sure, they'll fix that (how long, and how much more will it cost) but it isn't the high speed jet you desire either. as you say, it is not a good dogfighter, so what air targets do you see it engaging successfully? slow bombers with no jet escorts? it currently is designed with only 4 a2a missiles, and that's when it's dressed for a2a missions.

so many unanswered questions about this jet, when more diligence could have prevented it.
 
....dude, you were doing pretty good till here.

They are done. Thats it. Airframes can not be operated past their life expectance without fatality.

When we bought F-18 we purchased a multi roll fighter that technically was built to be launched from an aircraft carrier for naval operations.

The American F-18's went through four major upgrades IE: F-18E

We kept F-18A to the point where we couldn't see or hear any of our allies aircraft any more.

It had one upgrade to get that sorted and thats it.

You can't shortcut anything in the aero industry. Every part has a life/time span and when it's up it's up.

You kill people when you run it any longer than it was intended.

i'm not suggesting that the cf18s don't need to be replaced. they clearly do. what i'm suggesting is that replacing them with 35 jsf because the harpos froze the funding to achieve cost certainty is not the solution either.

they need to either somehow get true cost certainty on the f35, or investigate one of the less expensive options, so that they can actually purchase a meaningful number of them
 
btw, i have sub-contracted out plumbers, framing and drywallers, flooring guys, electricians, landscapers, and painters on a renovation before, and had a pool built.

i did my due diligence with each one, got cost certainty in the form of estimates, and they all delivered on time and on budget. when they didn't deliver on time or on budget, they ate the overages.

for this reason, and others, i don't think your comparison is analogous.

If you aren't reasonable or fair no matter what... they won't work for you ever again or do and helpful follow up when you get some trouble. Just sayin...
 
I am down for buying whatever India has, but like 300 of them. Forget about maintenance. We will use them like toilet paper.
 
35 jets, boys...the latest made-up number by afong!

Where's the transparency, man???
 
35 jets, boys...the latest made-up number by afong!

Where's the transparency, man???

Quick tip for arguing....constantly denegrating the other person's argument while proposing none of your own points is what intelligent design proponents do. You don't want to be lumped in with the "men walked with dinosaurs and the earth is 2000 years old" crowd do you?

So far your points have been "Bob Rae says it so it must be bad"...or " just shut up and stop crying and accept it you hippie fags".....neither of which seem to really get you anywhere in the relevant or smartness stakes.
 
Quick tip for arguing....constantly denegrating the other person's argument while proposing none of your own points is what intelligent design proponents do. You don't want to be lumped in with the "men walked with dinosaurs and the earth is 2000 years old" crowd do you?

So far your points have been "Bob Rae says it so it must be bad"...or " just shut up and stop crying and accept it you hippie fags".....neither of which seem to really get you anywhere in the relevant or smartness stakes.

Ive posted up plenty of facts but all you guys have are partisan talking points.

ITS TOO EXPENSIVE!

Compared to fking what? What frame of reference? Is 0.5% of our annual budget too much, but 0.35% is okay? According to whom? The newspapers?

THERE WAS NO DUE DILLIGENCE!

According to who? You? How the flying feck do you guys know whats been researched and to what extent? Again, you repeat it because the newspaper says so.

TRANSPARENCY!

Um, what transparency? Over the last 15 years we've been updated on the development and the escalating costs. If there was no "transparency" we wouldn't even be discussing this because we'd be totally in the dark!

THEY'RE LYING ABOUT THE EXPENSES!!

No they aren't. They're givin us the current estimated costs as they get them. The additional $10B that the media has latched onto isnt a cost of this procurement, PERIOD. Its the ongoing cost of all the personnel, whether they fly cessnas or f18s or gripens.

I posted about some of the technologies in the jet, such as the avionics and radar, and the situational awareness systems..as well as the versatility of the weapons platform. Nobody said a peep. All you guys come back with are the same talking points... I might as well just read The Star.
 
Sorry all, I know this is long but this is the DND take on it all....


On March 10, 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report on F-35 cost estimates which contains numbers and estimates that differ from the program analysis conducted by the Department of National Defence. The results of this discrepancy are misleading to the Canadian public and our international allies. The Department of National Defence stands behind its estimates for F-35 acquisition. The narrative below outlines how departmental costs are arrived at and why they are the most accurate numbers for this procurement process.

THE PRICE OF SOVEREIGNTY

The Canadian Forces protect the sovereignty of one of the largest expanses of airspace in the world, extending well out over the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific oceans. Canada also shares responsibility for the defence of North America with the United States, and has international defence commitments as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Canada requires a fighter aircraft to contribute to the safety and security of Canadians while effectively supporting foreign policy and national security objectives, as set out in the Canada First Defence Strategy. Following this strategy’s release, the Air Force examined in detail the operational requirements for Canada's new fighters. A systematic analysis of fighter aircraft roles; future operating environment; threats from air, land and sea; and technological advances revealed the need for a fifth generation aircraft and stealth capability. Stealth qualities include high-resolution sensors; the ability to manage huge volumes of data in increasingly complex tactical environments (fusion); and the means to share this information through secure high-capacity networks (interoperability).

A meticulous analysis of mandatory requirements for the next generation fighter capability made it clear that only a fifth generation fighter could satisfy those requirements in the increasingly complex and uncertain future security environment. The F-35 is the only available fifth generation fighter aircraft that meets the Canadian Forces’ requirements.

Following the Government of Canada’s selection of the F-35 Lightning II as the replacement fighter jet for its decades-old CF-18 Hornet, the Department of National Defence (DND) is moving forward with implementing this project. The Department is committed to openness, transparency and accountability to Canadians, and as such is providing the facts and details on how the cost estimates for the F-35 fleet are arrived at and the breakdown of those costs.

Canada is exercising its option as a partner in the multi-national Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program to acquire the Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant, which is the least costly variant and the one being purchased by the majority of the JSF partner nations. Canada will acquire its F-35 aircraft at the peak of production when costs are lowest.

Development and flight tests of Canada’s variant are progressing well, with the first production CTOL making its maiden flight in February. In fact, by the time Canada takes expected delivery of its first F-35, not only will several hundred aircraft will have already been delivered, but it is estimated that the world wide fleet will have flown about half a million hours.

Canada’s acquisition includes 65 aircraft, along with initial logistical support, including simulators and spares, project management, infrastructure, weapons and contingency costs, which total $9 billion CAD. The total estimated project cost breakdown is as follows:

Acquisition Breakdown Cost:
• Aircraft: 5.58 B
• Block Upgrades: 0.18 B
• Refuelling Probe: 0.10 B
• Drag Chute: 0.06 B
• Government Supplied Material: 0.01 B
• Other Miscellaneous Systems: 0.07 B

Subtotal: 6.00 B
• Integrated Logistics Support (including simulators and spares): 1.30 B
• Project Management Office: 0.20 B
• Infrastructure: 0.40 B
• Weapons: 0.30 B
• Contingency: 0.80 B

Total Estimated Project Cost: 9.00 B


The $6 billion CAD figure (which is part of the $9 billion acquisition cost) refers to an estimated $75 million US per aircraft as well as exchange rates, necessary items, materials, systems and inclusion of upgrades.

ARRIVING AT CANADA’S COSTS

The US-led JSF program is not only the largest defence procurement in history, it is arguably also the most scrutinized. The JSF cost estimation process is a continuous, detailed activity involving multiple experts and independent reviews. With independent review by the eight other partner nations involved and extensive oversight of the program within the US Government, every aspect is being closely monitored.

The JSF Program Office (JPO) production cost estimate is derived using a year-long cost analysis process involving a large team that is actively engaged in managing the daily costs of the F-35 production and supplier base.

As a signatory to the Production, Sustainment and Follow-On Development Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed in 2006, Canada is provided with an annual detailed cost estimate by the JSF Program Office. This MoU is the agreement that guides the JSF partners through the F-35’s development, production, purchasing and maintenance phases. Additionally, Canadian project office representatives go over cost estimates specific to Canada with their JSF Program Office counterparts at least once annually. The culmination of all of this data is what DND bases its own estimates on.

REAL COSTS AND ACTUAL DATA

JPO cost assessments use a bottom-up analysis which incorporates detailed estimates at the assembly and component levels. These actual figures are preferable and offer much more reliability than possible with a top-down approach, such as one that simply bases aircraft cost on weight.

JPO estimates take into account actual trends in the labour and supplier base including signed contracts and actual costs. They also factor in proven savings associated with the commonality of design of the three JSF variants of aircraft.

To date, actual costs for those Low Rate Initial Production (small lots of aircraft produced to ensure production line peak efficiency) under contract have all come in lower than the JPO estimates. To purchase Canada’s variant off the production line today would be $128 million USD per aircraft, which is already far below the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimate. Also of note, this figure is much higher than the $75 million USD Canada estimates it will pay when purchasing aircraft between 2016 and 2022, at the peak of production.

THE NUMBERS BEHIND SUSTAINMENT

The JPO sustainment cost estimate is also derived using a year-long process involving all nine partner nations. Each country reviews and updates the associated JPO Ground Rules & Assumptions and their respective aircraft delivery plans to reflect their latest approaches to F-35 fleet operation and sustainment. This input is coordinated and reconciled, and forms the input to costing models which generate the sustainment cost estimate.

The costing models are continuously updated to incorporate actual data and experience from sustaining the ever increasing JSF flying fleet. To date, more than 680 flights have been flown by 11 aircraft generating some 1,000 flight hours of experience to pull from.

DND’s estimated cost for sustainment over a 20-year period is $5.7 billion. Combined with the $9 billion acquisition cost, thetotal estimated cost and sustainment of Canada’s 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is $14.7 billion.

ADDITIONAL CHECKS AND BALANCES

In addition to the rigorous cost estimation processes above, JSF costing is also monitored by independent US Government cost review groups: the Joint Estimating Team and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation directorate. The JSF program has also recently undergone a very thorough and detailed Technical Baseline Review, a successful endeavour to restructure the program. This involved approximately 120 subject matter experts from across the full spectrum of activities associated with a program of this size and nature (including manufacturing, aircraft production, flight testing, etc.). As a result of that effort, the JSF program has been re-structured to provide an even more solid and realistic foundation for development, production and sustainment.

STANDING BY OUR NUMBERS

DND stands behind the estimates communicated publicly for F-35 acquisition and sustainment. Canada’s estimates have not changed since the Government announced this acquisition on 16 July, 2010. Given the level of effort and rigour demonstrated in cost estimating processes, the validation of estimates with actual data, and the unprecedented level of scrutiny, DND remains confident that its cost estimates are the most accurate numbers for this procurement process. Additionally the cost estimates’ reliability will continue to improve year after year as actual cost data to produce and sustain the worldwide fleet are factored in to the process.

HIGH VALUE WORK AND JOBS FOR CANADIANS

The estimated value of opportunities for Canadian industry arising from Canada’s acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft, at a cost of $9 billion, is approximately $12 billion. This value is arrived at through analysis by the Prime Contractors based on their assessment of Canadian companies’ capabilities and projected F-35 production requirements.


Through the Industrial Participation approach, Canadian companies have privileged access to the work available to produce and sustain the 3,100+ aircraft currently forecast to be acquired by the partner countries.

Sixty-four Canadian companies have secured contracts valued at approximately $350 million CAD. This includes contracts that have been completed as well as work currently underway. Since 2007, the value of contracts held by Canadian companies has nearly doubled (94 per cent increase).

The estimated $12 billion in potential benefits does not include the additional work that will be done by Canadian industry resulting from sales to non-partner countries (such as Israel, which announced a contract to acquire approximately 75 F-35s). Nor does the value include any of the potential benefits that will result from Canadian industrial participation in sustainment valued at $5.7 billion (maintenance, training, simulation, etc.). Industry Canada continues to work closely with the Prime Contractors to identify sustainment opportunities for Canadian companies.

THE COST OF CANCELLATION

If Canada withdrew from the Production, Sustainment and Follow-On Development agreement, there would be costs associated with that withdrawal, which would have to be negotiated with the other partners. Canada would be required to purchase the F-35 aircraft through the Foreign Military Sales program and have to pay approximately $850-900 million CAD more for the aircraft in addition to royalties to the JSF partner countries. To back out now on its commitment to purchase the F-35, Canada would forfeit all its current investments under the MoU, which include $225 million to date. The Industrial Participation Plan would also be invalidated as it is continent on Canada’s commitment to purchase the F-35.
 
^ clearly NO research was done :rolleyes:

That's one side of the argument (government) and communications are only being released now as more scrutiny is being placed on the order. Nothing in the document points to any tender process...only the presumed need for a 5th generation aircraft which conveniently then falls in the lap of only one 5th generation aircraft manufacturer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunit...-purchasing-f-35-jets-for-a-better-price.html

Plenty of discussion on the topic. More than enough from both sides to sit back and ask if there is indeed any smoke without fire?
 
Like I stated a hundred times...just because its not an open tender doesn't mean there is no due diligence.

"one side" of the argument? There IS only one side: our friggin military. Armchair critics from The Star need not apply.
 
btw, i have sub-contracted out plumbers, framing and drywallers, flooring guys, electricians, landscapers, and painters on a renovation before, and had a pool built.

i did my due diligence with each one, got cost certainty in the form of estimates, and they all delivered on time and on budget. when they didn't deliver on time or on budget, they ate the overages.

for this reason, and others, i don't think your comparison is analogous.


Now I know you are a massive liar and a ****ing dreamer.
 
yeah, if i'm joe blow small business, not answerable to shareholders (aka, taxpayers) then maybe that works.

but in a multi-billion dollar business, contracts are tendered, due diligence takes place.

and on and on. . .

this is our government, not a pool or bike business. . .this is a massive contract where if we choose wrong, we really don't get a chance for a do-over. . .we need to get it right the first time. we do that by making accurate assessments of our actual needs and not getting sold a bill of goods.

the plane just simply doesn't do what it was promised. if and when that happens (the plane meets promised performance), it will be many years later than budgeted for (delays add more cost) and will be far more expensive than what was guaranteed to the canadian people.

here is the government basically admitting there was not enough due diligence or transparency in the first place:
"Funding will remain frozen and Canada will not purchase new aircraft until further due diligence, oversight and transparency is applied to the process of replacing the Canadian Forces' aging CF-18 fleet," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

by freezing funding when all experts clearly know that the costs are only going up means that we aren't going to end up with 65 jets. it will be significantly less than that, especially if they insist on working with wildly lowball cost estimates. what good does replacing 80 cf-16s with 35 jsf's really do?




Wrong as usual. Do shareholders in a large corp vote and whine on every large purchase? No. The people hired to run the co. Deal with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom