F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

They will say that the competition was biaised and unfair....

 

[Haletown]

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. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

 

[Haletown]

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.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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?

 

[ArmyRick]

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.

 

[ArmyRick]

Mods, oops. I meant for the above post to be put in the F35 thread. Is there a way to move it? 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Mods, oops. I meant for the above post to be put in the F35 thread. Is there a way to move it? 

Yup.......and done.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[OldSolduer]

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.

 

[Haletown]

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

 

[trampbike]

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.

 

[Kilo_302]

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.

 

[PuckChaser]

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.

 

[armyvern]

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 ass end) sticking out of your garage for 10 years unfueled!!??

It's that "value for money". Your car is really a Raptor.  8)

 

[EME-Glen]

More political manuevering , but still no jets...

OTTAWA – No decisions made, no planes bought, but interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae is calling for the prime minister and defence minister to resign over “a massive fraud” after the auditor general slammed the process National Defence followed for replacing the aging CF-18 fighter jets.

“(Stephen Harper) cannot now pretend that he was just the piano player in the brothel who didn't have a clue as to what was really going on upstairs,” said Rae.

In a report released Tuesday, Auditor General Michael Ferguson found National Defence officials didn’t adequately inform ministers about problems with the F-35 fighter program, underestimated expected costs and bent the procurement rules.

Ferguson also pointed out defence officials had an internal estimate of $25 billion to buy and operate 65 F-35 jets over 20 years, but only presented a $16-billion figure publicly

That the government relied on National Defence’s public figures was enough for Rae to compare the Conservatives to a company that would “sack its chief executive officer” and “replace the board of directors” after misleading shareholders.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair accused Defence Minister Peter MacKay of failing to keep track of the F-35 file.

“The minister of national defence had the responsibility to know, the duty to find out and the obligation to tell the truth in Parliament,” said Mulcair.

Harper stood by MacKay, adding that the government has changed its approach to the F-35.

“The auditor general has given a recommendation on re-examining cost estimates,” said Harper. “The government will do that. The government will also improve the process for cost estimates before moving forward.”

MacKay came out of stealth mode Wednesday and answered opposition attacks for the first time since the auditor’s report, repeating the government’s line.

The government said it will take the F-35 file way from National Defence and give it to a special secretariat from the Public Works Department.

It’s also frozen the budget for jets to replace the CF-18s at $9 billion, while officials examine alternatives to the F-35 stealth fighters.``


Wait.

EME-GLEN out!

 

[Edward Campbell]

While I know that a lot of people will disagree with his "big hand, small map" or "broad brush" approach, Harry Swain is a switched on fellow with a deep understanding of the political and bureaucratic processes in Ottawa and his thoughts on the F-35, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are worth considering because, I guess, they probably reflect the thinking in the Privy Council Office, Finance and the Treasury Board - the places where real defence/military decisions are made:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/what-the-avro-arrow-should-have-taught-ottawa-about-the-f-35/article2392765/

What the Avro Arrow should have taught Ottawa about the F-35

HARRY SWAIN

Globe and Mail Blog
Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2012

Harry Swain is a former federal deputy minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

A Tory prime minister, secure in his majority but highly suspicious of his political enemies, finds himself blind-sided by obscure processes in the departments of Defence and Industry that had gravitated to the most advanced fighter plane in the world -- but one that cost more than the country could afford. It was fifty years ago, the prime minister was John Diefenbaker, and the plane was the Avro Arrow.

Bowing to fiscal reality affected the next election, and started a national myth of loss and betrayal as persistent as the National Energy Policy or the humiliation of Quebec.

The parallels to the F-35 are eerie, but there are important differences. The basic story of vested interests in both the public and private sectors reinforcing each others’ dreams of the biggest, baddest fighter in the whole world and devil take the taxpayer’s dollars is the same, as is prevarication and mendacity when the truth about cost starts to leak out. Both governments, half a century apart, initially defended their establishments while privately getting more and more alarmed about the financial cost of continuing versus the political costs of cancellation.

But there are some important differences, too. The F-35 does not have a big maple leaf on it, nor is it a vehicle for nationalist pride. Despite the fiction that we and the other non-U.S. buyers had an important role in design and development, we were in fact merely decorative afterthoughts in a U.S.-dominated process. And a large Canadian industrial base will not have to be stood down if the F-35 is cancelled or subjected to competition.

Both aircraft were obsolete the day they first flew. The Arrow was a large, fast, high-altitude plane able to intercept subsonic Soviet bombers coming over the Pole. It would not have been much use in a dogfight, or in ground-support roles. And the threat it was designed to counter was in the process of being made obsolete by intercontinental ballistic missiles that would fly far higher and faster than any jet aircraft could hope to do. The argument is less categorical with respect to the F-35, in part because the government has refused to publish information about the threats it is supposed to deal with, or the roles it should be called on to play, but there is much evidence from the Middle East (and the Canada-U.S. border!) that unmanned aircraft can do almost everything fighters can do, and at a fraction of the cost. Current developments will only work to the further advantage of pilotless craft, to the chagrin of Battle of Britain romantics and their descendants in today’s air ministries.

Shoving the business into the hands of a committee of deputy ministers, a tactic that worked well with ship procurement, may improve the process from here on, but only if hard questions about roles and affordability are on the table. To start from the conclusions already reached with more emotion than analysis will merely be a recipe for more tears later on.

Harry Swain hits the real question which, in so far as I can see, has never been addressed by the defence staff: why does Canada need this aircraft? We You They might get away with not having to address the question of why does Canada need front line, multi-role, manned jet fighters at all? for one more generation but I am about 99% certain that if I stopped an important cabinet minister, say Jim Flaherty or John Baird, and said "Why the F-35, Minister? What's the role?" neither could answer.

The new secretariat of deputy ministers will bring one key element to the table: a fine sense of that the Government of Canada can do with every (soon to disappear) penny not spent on F-35s.

In 2002 the then Liberal government backed into the F-35 for, essentially, industrial/economic reasons: hoping to get business for Canadian aerospace contractors; the Conservative just "went with the flow" which, by 2006, was going full steam ahead. Now I have no particular objection to selecting a major weapon system for purely economic reasons - they are sometimes better than the military reasons proffered by the defence staff - but I'm not sure anyone, including the Chief of the Air Staff, knows why we need the F-35, if, indeed, we do need it.

Decisions about what our armed forces do and how they are equipped are, very properly, the business of civilians. The F-35 project has had far, far too much military and DND input and, as far as I can tell, no "buy in" from the Privy Council Office; that may doom it to failure. Defence policy and procurement, like war is far to important to be left to the generals.

"War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men."
Georges Celemnceau

 

[Infanteer]

While I know that a lot of people will disagree with his "big hand, small map" or "broad brush" approach, Harry Swain is a switched on fellow with a deep understanding of the political and bureaucratic processes in Ottawa and his thoughts on the F-35, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are worth considering because, I guess, they probably reflect the thinking in the Privy Council Office, Finance and the Treasury Board - the places where real defence/military decisions are made:

<insert obligatory Haletown response praising F35 and damning Harry Swain as a clueless dilettante>

 

[Haletown]

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.

Indeed.  The longer a party is in power the more arrogant they get.  PMSH had best take stock of his government and how they operate or voters will respond in kind.

PM Harper has created a very big enemy by treating the Press  with total contempt.  They will gleefully pay him back at every opportunity - and this F 35 mess is a glorious opportunity for the Press and the Oposition to land a lot of jabs ans some hard punches.

This is self inflicted wounding by the government.  They either smarten up or pay a bigger price.

 

[Haletown]

<insert obligatory Haletown response praising F35 and damning Harry Swain as a clueless dilettante>

Ready.
Fire.
Aim.