Author Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)  (Read 1619850 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 134,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,535
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #750 on: April 03, 2012, 14:35:58 »
How did it go again in "yes Minister":

Who decided that I should not be told?

Nobody Minister, its just that no one decided to tell you.

What's the difference?

To actually make the decision to not tell a Minister something is a heavy burden for an official, whereas simply not telling him is standard practice.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 14:39:01 by Oldgateboatdriver »

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 211,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,945
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #751 on: April 03, 2012, 16:35:27 »
‘Overly confident’ DND failed to properly assess F-35 costs: auditor
daniel leblanc OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update Tuesday, Apr. 03, 2012
Article Link
 
National Defence gambled on the F-35 fighter jet without running a fair competition, all the while lacking any cost certainty or any guarantee the plane could replace the current fleet of CF-18s by the end of the decade, the Auditor-General says.

The $16-billion plan to purchase a fleet of Lockheed-Martin F-35 jets could cost $25-billion over the project’s lifespan, yet it was done in unco-ordinated fashion among federal departments, with key data hidden from decision-makers and parliamentarians.

The scathing report by the Auditor-General will fuel a political headache for the Harper government, which has ignored years of opposition attacks on the matter and which was fully committed to the F-35 until a few weeks ago. The Conservatives have put together a plan to review the process and could ultimately select another fighter, but the report raises a number of questions about the 2010 announcement to skip a tendering process and directly buy a fleet of 65 stealth F-35s, which are still in development.

Michael Ferguson, who is launching his 10-year tenure as Auditor-General with this report, is particularly harsh on DND’s handling of the purchase, going back to the 2006 decision to formally sign on to the U.S.-led project.

“National Defence did not exercise the diligence that would be expected in managing a $25-billion commitment,” Mr. Ferguson said in a news release. “It is important that a purchase of this size be managed rigorously and transparently.”

Given cost increases and production delays in the F-35 program, the Auditor-General is raising concerns about DND’s plans to phase out its CF-18s by the end of the decade.

“Briefing material did not inform senior decision makers, central agencies, and the Minister of the problems and associated risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18. Nor did National Defence provide complete cost information to parliamentarians,” the report said.

The report added the $16-billion estimate for the cost of the project was “likely underestimated,” given it was established “without the aid of complete cost and other information.”

A major element in major military purchases in Canada is the potential for regional industrial benefits. However, in this case, the government was only told of “the most optimistic scenario,” leaving doubts about the actual benefits that will flow to Canadian companies.

“We are concerned, because these projections were used to support key decisions related to Canada’s participation in the [Joint Strike Fighter] Program and the purchase of the F-35 aircraft,” the report said.

Ottawa embarked on a sole-sourced process in 2006 to purchase the F-35, ignoring four other existing aircraft that might have proven to be safer choices. However, the Public Works department – which is responsible for the actual acquisition – was only fully involved in the process by late 2009.

“[Public Works] did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the government’s procurement authority,” the report said.

In fact, Public Works only received the “statement of operational requirement” for the new fighters in August 2010, while the government had already signaled its intention to buy the F-35s the previous month.

“Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition,” the report said.

In his news release, Mr. Ferguson added: “[DND] did not acknowledge that the decision to purchase the F-35 was well underway four years before it was officially announced.”

Overall, the Auditor-General said that DND has been “overly confident” in its strategy to buy new fighter jets.

The report comes as the department is struggling to complete other major military procurements, including its 2004 decision to purchase Sikorsky helicopters, which were also still being developed, to replace the current fleet of Sea Kings. The new helicopters have yet to be delivered.

Civil aviation, border controls and debt

Other chapters in the report included the following findings:

» On federal oversight of civil aviation, Transport Canada received praise for implementing a new surveillance system. However concern was expressed that the department is not collecting important risk factors such as the financial health of an aviation company. Concerns were also raised about the level of documentation produced by inspectors.

The Auditor-General’s report states that “we also found that many fewer inspections are done than planned. This is significant considering that only the companies and the operations areas considered to be of higher risk are selected for inspection in any given year.”

» On border controls on commercial imports, the audit’s findings are largely favourable. The report notes that there is a need for a clearer agreement between Canada Border Services Agency and Health Canada on how to handle health-related products at the border.

» On the federal government’s management of interest-bearing debt, the report says the Department of Finance uses “a sound process.” However the Auditor-General says Ottawa needs to do a better job of clearly explaining how much of the federal debt is related to its pension obligations to public servants.

The federal debt for 2010-11 stood at $801.8-billion, of which $146.1-billion is obligations to public sector pension plans. This debt is largely because prior to 2000, the federal government did not set aside money in a separate fund to cover its pension obligations. The C.D. Howe Institute has argued that Ottawa should use a different accounting method, which would then value its unfunded pension liabilities at about $227-billion. The Auditor-General’s report does not weigh into that debate.
end
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,474
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #752 on: April 03, 2012, 17:21:02 »
Para 2 of the AG's report:

Quote
National Defence has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program since 1997. Led by the United States, and with eight other country partners, the Program is undertaking concurrent design, development, and manufacturing of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. It will eventually include a regime for long-term collaborative sustainment. Canada’s participation has been formalized by signing international memoranda of understanding—in 1997, 2002, and 2006—for each of the three major phases of the JSF Program. As of September 2011, the government had disbursed about CAN$335 million toward participation in the JSF Program and related support to Canadian industry. The government has committed a total of US$710 million to the Program.

In humble opinion "Estimation has been Situated".

"National Defence has been a partner since....."

Wrong.

"Canada, or The Crown in right of Canada, or The Government of Canada has been a partner since..."

Quote
Canada’s participation has been formalized by signing international memoranda of understanding—in 1997, 2002, and 2006—for each of the three major phases of the JSF Program.

MOU 1997 Chretien/Williams/Murray or Baril
MOU 2002 Chretien/Williams/Henault
MOU 2006 Harper/Ross/Natynczyk

Quote
By the end of 2006, the Department was actively involved in developing the F-35, and a number of activities had put in motion its eventual procurement.

Quote
2.19 To date, Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program for almost 15 years. Officials from National Defence have contributed to all three phases, including participating in its senior decision-making and technical committees. In addition, Industry Canada, together with National Defence, made efforts to ensure Canadian companies had (and continue to have) opportunities to bid on work in connection with the aircraft development as well as eventual production and sustainment. There is no single set of federal policies or rules that govern participation in an international initiative such as the JSF Program.

15 years of project. Government of Canada. National Defence.  Industry Canada. NO PRE-EXISTING Manual. ( Not surprising for a unique effort that tried to solve the problems associated with all previous attempts at procuring aircraft across NATO).

My sense is that PWGSC is arguing for turf - saying that they weren't at the party soon enough and they could have done a better job.

What was the disconnect amongst PWGSC, DND and Industry Canada (not to mention DFAIT) prior to 2006 that they weren't all at the table from the get go?  Whose cabinet was responsible for wrestling goats?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,474
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #753 on: April 03, 2012, 17:48:51 »
Back and still grindin' and fumin'

Quote
Also, while ministers were told that the 2006 MOU did not prevent Canada from having a competition in the future, they were not told of the practical limitations of doing so. For example, as a partner in the development of the F-35, National Defence’s long-standing relationship with and access to proprietary data from one of the prime contractors, coupled with the unique benefits offered only to partners, meant that other potential aircraft manufacturers would be disadvantaged from competing fairly.

In what way is this different from the advantage that Rafale gains from working with the French Air Force and that the French Government gains from Rafale.  How about EADS with the Brits, Jerries and Italians?  How about the US with Lockheed?

Essentially this programme seeks/sought to bring nations like Canada, Australia, Denmark and Turkey, who couldn't afford to build/develop aircraft of their own, into the programme early,  have them take on some limited development risk (much the same way as they would with any of their domestic defence contractors) and have some input into assuring that the finished vehicle will be adjusted, modestly to fit their requirements.

Does anybody suppose that after Canada installs shipbuilding capacity, hires staff, designs ships and gets the first hulls in the water that they will do anything other than buy the ships that the yards are producing?

What? They are then going to go and run a competition with Meko and Fincantieri and then decide not to buy the domestically produced product?

The reason there is no rule book is that nobody has done it this way before.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,364
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #754 on: April 04, 2012, 02:19:26 »
Kirk, I agree with all your previous statements, and I can tell that this hits a bit of a sore spot for you.

Essentially this programme seeks/sought to bring nations like Canada, Australia, Denmark and Turkey, who couldn't afford to build/develop aircraft of their own, into the programme early,  have them take on some limited development risk (much the same way as they would with any of their domestic defence contractors) and have some input into assuring that the finished vehicle will be adjusted, modestly to fit their requirements.

Exactly,  does the current AG think that we would have gotten all the necessary information to make informed decisions if we hadn't participated?  This information is highly proprietary and it certainly ain't free.  We're all-in the way I see it.

Does anybody suppose that after Canada installs shipbuilding capacity, hires staff, designs ships and gets the first hulls in the water that they will do anything other than buy the ships that the yards are producing?

The only problem with this statement is that it does employ Canadians.  Perhaps, we should have went it alone on the JSF and designed another Avro Arrow.  We all know how well that turned out.

The reason there is no rule book is that nobody has done it this way before.

Your right, it probably is a first for collaboration at this level.  Another problem is that the rules and processes that we are being held to right now, were likely very different at the outset.

Let's get this crap over with and commit already.  Let me see... partners with the US and AUS; or partners with France or Italy.  Oh, that's a tough one. 
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 02:28:46 by GnyHwy »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,474
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #755 on: April 04, 2012, 09:47:12 »
 :piper:

Ach, Ferguson's a tcheuchter! He got my sassenach blood up.

By comparison here is the Dutch Auditor's report on exactly the same matter as it pertains to the F-16/JSF

Monitoring the Replacement of the F-16
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,474
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #756 on: April 04, 2012, 10:13:44 »
And here's the UK House of Commons report on "state of play".

Note section 5 of the report on Partner Countries where it states partners' wishes and intentions and how intentions are adjusted as the information on the project develops. 

With firm information decisions can be finalized.  When nothing but estimates are available then you may as well stick with plan A until you know something better. 

Otherwise you get stuck in the position the UK government is in:

F-35B.  No wait F-35C.   No maybe F-35B after all......   Oh what the heck.  We'll let you know in a few months time.


The difference between Canada and the rest?   The rest don't have the same logistical antipathy to carrying two sets of spare parts and as a result aren't in the situation where the need to do a block exchange of aircraft.  They are capable of covering gaps and adjustments as new aircraft come on line.

Canada's situation wouldn't be nearly as dire if 50% of the fighter fleet had been refreshed at 15 year intervals.  Just as our Navy wouldn't be in its current situation if its hulls had been refreshed on a similar timeline.

Stuff the opposition.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline EME-Glen

  • Guest
  • *
  • 182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
  • RCEME-Glen
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #757 on: April 04, 2012, 11:26:47 »
Ok , here is a bit from ``WIRED`` magazine  December 14, 2011. Thank you,  Mr. David Axe and associates for their cooperation in advance with the copy and paste feature, e.g. (I found it interesting and I hope you do too)

``The 196th and final F-22 Raptor has rolled out of Lockheed Martin’s factory in Marietta, Georgia. That means yesterday marked an end to more than 14 years of production for what’s widely considered the most fearsome jet fighter in history. And also one of the costliest.

So what’s the cost? As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count. The thing is, the best way of calculating the F-22′s cost may be the most abstract. But any way you crunch the numbers, the world’s best dogfighter has also been one of the most expensive operational warplanes ever.

Over the years, the Raptor’s cost has been the subject of intense debate in the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the media. But advocates and critics tend to quote different figures to serve their various agendas. Fans of the twin-engine fighter usually refer to the “flyaway cost” — that is, how much Lockheed charged the government to piece together each Raptor after all development has been paid for. In other words, just construction spending.

By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — a plane specifically designed to be “affordable,” whatever that means. (All figures are in roughly constant dollars.)


Haters cite “unit cost,” which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.

And just because the last Raptor left the Marietta factory doesn’t mean the unit cost is fixed at $377 million. If the Air Force ever gets around to adding a long-planned-for datalink, the unit cost could increase slightly. Tweaks to prevent future groundings — like those that occurred this year — would also push the unit cost up.

By contrast, the F-35′s unit cost should stabilize at around $157 million, owing to a massive 2,443-plane production run. That’s assuming the Joint Strike Fighter doesn’t get canceled or curtailed following revelations of new design flaws.

There’s a third way to calculate the F-22′s burden on the taxpayer. “Lifecycle cost” adds up the price of fuel, spare parts and maintenance during the jet’s projected 40-year lifespan. The Government Accountability Office estimates it will cost $59 billion to fix and fly the F-22s until they retire. If you add unit cost and per-plane lifecycle cost, you get the total amount the United States spends to design, produce and operate a single Raptor: a whopping $678 million.

F-35 lifecycle plus unit cost, assuming nothing else goes wrong? $469 million, according to Air Force figures quoted by the GAO.

The fourth and final approach to calculating the Raptor’s price takes into account its effectiveness. It’s a trickier measurement. But it might be the best one to consider. It asks: How much value does the U.S. government get from its investment in F-22s?

While it’s undetectable in isolated flyaway, unit and lifecycle cost figures, value is inarguably important. A cheap used car that never leaves the driveway is, in a real sense, more expensive than a car you pay sticker price for and drive every day.

So consider this: since the F-22 entered service in 2005, every other operational warplane in the U.S. arsenal has seen action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or other conflict zones. But the tiny fleet of pricey F-22s, optimized for ultra-rare dogfighting missions, missing key upgrades and frequently grounded, hasn’t flown a single combat sortie.

That should be the real source of buyer’s remorse.``

__________________________________________________________________________

I add that we are choosing the F-35, doing so soon likely and expecting to pay less than the superior fighter jet, F22 Raptor.
I trust that the Air Force leadership choose those F35`s for all the right reasons and not just for cutting costs. 
WoW, these multi-million dollar purchases are heady items, aren`t they?
 :salute:
EME-GLEN out


Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,095
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #758 on: April 04, 2012, 11:33:01 »
Wonder what they will do if they hold an open and transparent competition and the F-35 wins....

Offline WingsofFury

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 514
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #759 on: April 04, 2012, 11:45:11 »
Wonder what they will do if they hold an open and transparent competition and the F-35 wins....

They will cry...

But I think it will come down to whether or not a new SOP will be written, and what, if any, details they may leave in or out of it.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 81,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,779
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #760 on: April 04, 2012, 11:59:13 »
They will say that the competition was biaised and unfair....

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #761 on: April 04, 2012, 12:15:24 »
Same stuff, different country.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/02/the-pentagons-self-inflicted-wound/


"“Never in the history of U.S. aviation has the Pentagon tried to project the cost of an aircraft program over a 55-year period,” she said. “The F-35 is the first aircraft program to undergo this type of review.”

The Defense Department could have neutralized this by releasing a comparable analysis for its existing fighters — Lockheed is set to deliver its 4,500th F-16 this week, for example. From first doodles to this week’s jet, how much has been spent on every F-16 ever built, including fuel, maintenance, shark-mouth nose art; glow wands for the ramp marshals,  coffee in the pilots’ ready rooms, etc?"


Good idea . . .   it will put paid to the ridiculous media claims about the most expensive military program ever meme they love to yak about.

DND should do the same here and make the PBO cost out a number of programs and departments on an equivalent time frame. 

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 479,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,340
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #762 on: April 04, 2012, 12:25:47 »
Competition is great ... in a 'free' marketplace. But the marketplace for fifth generation fighters is very small and, de facto closed.

The RCAF leadership has, or should have, convinced the Government of Canada that it requires a fifth generation, multi-role aircraft - assuming no one else (e.g. Industry Canada or Public Works and Government Services or the Finance Department) feels well enough qualified to dispute that operational requirement and assuming the government of the day agrees that operational requirement then the question is: how do we select the best, most affordable fifth generation fighter that meets all the other subsidiary requirements (like being maintainable and interoperable and so on)? Well first we "invite" bids, right? OK, who are the qualified bidders with a fifth generation fighter that exists somewhere other than in a Powerpoint slide deck? Oops - there are none; it is a 'closed' market - one, and only one, seller; why have a competition?

The Liberals made a choice back in 2002 when they signed on as "informed partner" by 2010 the Conservative government was faced with a limited range of options:

1. IF a fifth generation aircraft is, indeed, a valid operational requirement then there is no 'open market' and a competition makes no sense; but

2. IF a competition is really necessary then the RCAF's best minds are wrong and a fifth generation fighter is not required ... so say the media, the bureaucrats in Public Works and Government Services. (the latter get some job security if there is a competition) and the consultants.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #763 on: April 04, 2012, 12:50:15 »
E.R. . . . you should be a highly paid consultant working in the PM's office providing strategic advice. 

Seriously.

Canadians would understand that because it is simple and makes ++++ common sense.  And when Canadians have an opportunity to support the troops, they do.



Offline drunknsubmrnr

  • Semper in Excreto
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #764 on: April 04, 2012, 12:57:00 »
Wonder what they will do if they hold an open and transparent competition and the F-35 wins....

A fair competition hasn't been possible since 2010 according to the report.

On the other hand, the department apparently can't reasonably justify buying the F-35 either, according to the same report.

Where to go from here?

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #765 on: April 04, 2012, 14:37:45 »
Using the critics formula for calculating cost. Here is what my 2003 Saturn Vue "true cost" must be (Over ten years)

Vehicle with taxes = $18,000
Insurance (annual) = $995/year (x 10) = $9950
Oil Changes = $35/change x 30 (3 every year) = $1050
Tire Roatations = $20 (x 10) = $200
Annual Tune Ups = $100 (x 10) = $1000
Wind Shield Wipers = $50 every year (x 10) = $500
Wind Shield Fluid = $40 every year (x 10) = $400
Brakes = $400 (x 3) = $1200
Electrical Work = $600
Replace battery = $200
Total "true cost" is $33,100! Imagine that! If we added in maintenance and upgrade cost to every thing we have (house, car, boat, bike, etc) then yes the total cost over its expected life will always seem staggering. Nice propaganda trick.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #766 on: April 04, 2012, 14:41:05 »
Mods, oops. I meant for the above post to be put in the F35 thread. Is there a way to move it?  :P
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 242,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,788
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #767 on: April 04, 2012, 14:51:29 »
Mods, oops. I meant for the above post to be put in the F35 thread. Is there a way to move it?  :P

Yup.......and done.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 134,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,535
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #768 on: April 04, 2012, 15:22:21 »
Using the critics formula for calculating cost. Here is what my 2003 Saturn Vue "true cost" must be (Over ten years)

Vehicle with taxes = $18,000
Insurance (annual) = $995/year (x 10) = $9950
Oil Changes = $35/change x 30 (3 every year) = $1050
Tire Roatations = $20 (x 10) = $200
Annual Tune Ups = $100 (x 10) = $1000
Wind Shield Wipers = $50 every year (x 10) = $500
Wind Shield Fluid = $40 every year (x 10) = $400
Brakes = $400 (x 3) = $1200
Electrical Work = $600
Replace battery = $200
Total "true cost" is $33,100! Imagine that! If we added in maintenance and upgrade cost to every thing we have (house, car, boat, bike, etc) then yes the total cost over its expected life will always seem staggering. Nice propaganda trick.

No, no, no, ArmyRick. Remember, when you bought your Vue, it turned out to be longer than your old car - So with the workbench at the end, it did not fit in the garage and you couldn't fit the bench on the side wall either. You had to get rid of the bench, purchase that spiffy tool wall mounted storage system and put in a foldable workbench at the end of the garage: costs $2,500. Oh, and you heat that garage for your car don't you! So 10 times $120 = $1200.

And you won't keep it for ten years, but for 18, so at age 10, you'll have the car re-engined, change all the shocks and other parts of the ride system, change the muffler system and the catalytic converter and will update the car stereo and your GPS: Cost, plus extra maintenance over the extra 8 years: $12,000. Total cost according to the AG me: $48,800.







Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 219,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,032
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #769 on: April 04, 2012, 18:38:53 »
I guess Bob Rae wants to pi$$ away a billion and not even get a liter of oil. Sound familiar ?

We don't need no Cadillac fighters.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #770 on: April 04, 2012, 19:10:31 »
What does Bob have against the Dutch?  Good enough for them, might be good enough for us.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=647

Offline trampbike

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 118
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #771 on: April 04, 2012, 20:21:40 »
Wonder what they will do if they hold an open and transparent competition and the F-35 wins....

Canada would have to leave the MoU to hold an open and transparent competition.
So if the F-35 wins, we'll buy it for much more $ and get way less industrial benefits.

So yeah... they will cry AND claim the competition was biased.

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 530
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #772 on: April 05, 2012, 01:12:46 »
In the end based on the merits of the aircraft, I  am FOR the JSF. But we cannot hide the fact that this government has purposely hidden real numbers from Parliament. Surely even the Tory loyals on this site must see that reality. and act or vote accordingly.


Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 915,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,090
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #773 on: April 05, 2012, 02:41:54 »
In the end based on the merits of the aircraft, I  am FOR the JSF. But we cannot hide the fact that this government has purposely hidden real numbers from Parliament. Surely even the Tory loyals on this site must see that reality. and act or vote accordingly.

What real numbers? There's no real numbers yet. Everything is estimates and best-guesses. Picking one guess over another and saying the government is lying is ridiculous. They may be slightly naive to think the cost will stay bargain-basement like $60 million an aircraft, but have already stated if the aircraft final cost is far beyond what we're prepared to pay, we won't buy it. The Tories can't win with the F35, if they cancel it and it takes another 15 years for a replacement the Opposition will start the crying of the proverbial river that they are not giving the RCAF the proper tools to do their jobs.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 207,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,536
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #774 on: April 05, 2012, 06:12:51 »
Using the critics formula for calculating cost. Here is what my 2003 Saturn Vue "true cost" must be (Over ten years)

Vehicle with taxes = $18,000
Insurance (annual) = $995/year (x 10) = $9950
Oil Changes = $35/change x 30 (3 every year) = $1050
Tire Roatations = $20 (x 10) = $200
Annual Tune Ups = $100 (x 10) = $1000
Wind Shield Wipers = $50 every year (x 10) = $500
Wind Shield Fluid = $40 every year (x 10) = $400
Brakes = $400 (x 3) = $1200
Electrical Work = $600
Replace battery = $200
Total "true cost" is $33,100! Imagine that! If we added in maintenance and upgrade cost to every thing we have (house, car, boat, bike, etc) then yes the total cost over its expected life will always seem staggering. Nice propaganda trick.

Surely you lie:

How could it possibly cost you this much in bug juice when it has sat (apparently with it's *** end) sticking out of your garage for 10 years unfueled!!??

It's that "value for money". Your car is really a Raptor.   8)
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.