F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[drunknsubmrnr]

another good read  . . .  information that will most kikely be carefully avoided by our glorious state broadcorping castration.

The article would be a whole lot more useful if he actually understood how radar and LO worked.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No documents shared, so can't tell what else is there....

In the lead-up to last year’s federal election, Defence Department officials intentionally dodged repeated requests from Parliament’s budgetary watchdog to sit down and discuss the true cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program.

Newly released internal emails show that’s because they were awaiting approval from the top echelons of government to meet with Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and his staff — approval that never materialized.

Then, once an explosive report from the PBO was released, estimating the jets to be twice as expensive as the government’s claim, defence officials worked overtime to undermine its credibility.

The revelations raise new questions over why senior bureaucrats — or the Conservative government — stonewalled and attacked the PBO in the weeks before an election during which the F-35 figured prominently.

They also emerge as Page finds himself in a new fight with National Defence and other departments over their refusal to explain what programs and services will be cut as the federal government moves to slash billions in spending.

In October 2010, the House of Commons finance committee tasked the PBO with providing an independent cost estimate of the Conservative government’s plan to purchase 65 F-35s, which National Defence pegged at $16 billion over 20 years.

Defence officials provided some documents to the PBO’s main researcher, Peter Weltman, that December, and promised to co-operate with Weltman as he prepared his final report.

On Jan. 31, 2011, Weltman called the air force’s director of air requirements, Col. Randy Meiklejohn, with some further questions and requested a meeting to get a handle on how National Defence came up with its $16-billion figure for the F-35s.

“He has asked to meet with both of us sometime this week or next pending your availability with a view to discussing the cost breakdown and any lingering (technical) issues he might have,” Meiklejohn wrote to Col. Dave Burt, the officer in charge of the F-35 program.

Meiklejohn went on to note in the email that “we are committed to mtg. (meeting) with the PBO,” but that the two air force officers would have to get authorization “from higher” first.

Like Meiklejohn, Burt appeared inclined to have the meeting, as did others further up the chain of command.

But the request stalled on Feb. 3, 2011, when the department’s civilian head, deputy minister Robert Fonberg, wrote: “I’d like advice from PCO on how to handle.” ....

Postmedia News, 1 Dec 12

 

[Haletown]

Are they referring to the PBO report that made the  $1 billion adding error and re-invented ILS by creating a new costing model based on the weight of legacy aircraft?


Just curious.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Details Haletown, Mere Details!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Rest assured that IF the F-35 programme has become a political liability this government, this PM will not hesitate to toss it over the side.

What will we do for a first line fighter? The answer is we'll make do with whatever we can get for $n Billion (it was $9 Billion in 2010 and inflation is low, so ...).

Gen Lawson, being a fighter pilot, will put an excellent face on whatever solution Ms Ambrose decides will fly.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Rest assured that IF the F-35 programme has become a political liability this government, this PM will not hesitate to toss it over the side.

What will we do for a first line fighter? The answer is we'll make do with whatever we can get for $n Billion (it was $9 Billion in 2010 and inflation is low, so ...).

Gen Lawson, being a fighter pilot, will put an excellent face on whatever solution Ms Ambrose decides will fly.

Oh I think we're well long past the point of political liability. However I don't think its nearly as bad as people think.


I think what will come out in fairly short order is that the F-35 will probably be the cheapest option available to Canada when the chips are down. I had some thought that the Gripen would be cheaper (and it might still be) but the latest reports out of Sweden suggest that the new E/F model will have a per unit cost of $80 million USD... assuming the Swedish government decides to actually invest in the fighter. A realistic assessment of its operational cost (not the SAAB funded study by Janes) might suggest that its cheaper in the long term though not at $6000 dollars an hour. However  the aircraft will have significant difficulty in meeting Canada's operation needs (it didn't even make it out of the first round of the Indian MRCA program... that should tell you something). 

The other option is the Super Hornet... however the earliest decision date won't come until 2014. That means many component producers will not have been manufacturing F/A-18E/F parts for over two years. That will increase costs right there. Second our buy will be very limited in size, meaning we will not accrue any benefits of economies of scale, which will also increase unit costs. Finally operational costs for updating the fighter will be increasingly borne by Canada after 2025 as the US Navy withdraws the type from service. While it will use the Growler variant into 2040, alot of critical weapon and sensor systems not present in the growler will need to be updated in order to keep an RCAF fleet relevant. That money we will need to pay out ourselves.

 

[Haletown]

What HB said . . .  When the time comes to decide the objective is to make it the right thing to do and make the Opposition look like they are putting aircrew lives at risk by denying the better choice for the RCAF pilots who actually put their butts on the line.

The longer the decision point is pushed out, the more the Test Program progresses, the more the aircraft proves itself, the lower the unit purchase price . . . .  time is on the Governmnet's side.  The Opposition and our glorious media can whine on but it just wears thin after awhile. 

Ordinary Canadians move on to newer manufactured scandals and faux outrage articles.  The government trots out young pilots who just can't say enough good things and citizens will believe the service members not the whiners.

Because they have credibility.

 

[WingsofFury]

Oh I think we're well long past the point of political liability. However I don't think its nearly as bad as people think.


I think what will come out in fairly short order is that the F-35 will probably be the cheapest option available to Canada when the chips are down. I had some thought that the Gripen would be cheaper (and it might still be) but the latest reports out of Sweden suggest that the new E/F model will have a per unit cost of $80 million USD... assuming the Swedish government decides to actually invest in the fighter. A realistic assessment of its operational cost (not the SAAB funded study by Janes) might suggest that its cheaper in the long term though not at $6000 dollars an hour. However  the aircraft will have significant difficulty in meeting Canada's operation needs (it didn't even make it out of the first round of the Indian MRCA program... that should tell you something). 

The other option is the Super Hornet... however the earliest decision date won't come until 2014. That means many component producers will not have been manufacturing F/A-18E/F parts for over two years. That will increase costs right there. Second our buy will be very limited in size, meaning we will not accrue any benefits of economies of scale, which will also increase unit costs. Finally operational costs for updating the fighter will be increasingly borne by Canada after 2025 as the US Navy withdraws the type from service. While it will use the Growler variant into 2040, alot of critical weapon and sensor systems not present in the growler will need to be updated in order to keep an RCAF fleet relevant. That money we will need to pay out ourselves.

As always, couldn't agree more with what you posted. 

Just one note - from what I've read the Growler frames are expected to be in service until 2035, a total of 15 years after the NGJ is introduced.

 

[Haletown]

Thursday's F-35 porn.

http://www.aerotechnews.com/news/2012/12/05/f-35-lightning-ii-program-surpasses-5000-flight-hours/

 

[Melbatoast]

F-35 purchase cancelled.

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/06/1107-col-dentandt/

The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the operations committee of the federal Cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

Hasn't hit the news cycle yet (16 minutes old as of this post) but, hmmmm.

 

[Journeyman]

OMG!!  There will be one or two posters here on suicide watch!

      op:

 

[PuckChaser]

Can't wait to see what PWGSC tells us we need for fighter aircraft...  : Does Western Star make military planes?

 

[FJAG]

F-35 purchase cancelled.
Hasn't hit the news cycle yet (16 minutes old as of this post) but, hmmmm.

Its on the National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/06/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-pull-the-ejector-seat-on-f-35-purchase/

:brickwall:

 

[observor 69]

OMG!!  There will be one or two posters here on suicide watch!

      op:

anic:

 

[Gorgo]

Now, I believe, we can start chanting "We told you so!  We told you so!"  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

Now, I believe, we can start chanting "We told you so!  We told you so!"  ;D

As long as when the final production costs come in, and they're lower than all the F-35 haters estimates, everyone else can say "I told you so" right back at you. This is a purely political decision, and who says the F-35 doesn't come out on top when they hold ANOTHER competition for a CF-18 replacement?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now, I believe, we can start chanting "We told you so!  We told you so!"  ;D

1)  That would be far from gracious.

2)  How about we wait until someone willing to be identified says it out loud, officially?

 

[Infanteer]

This is a purely political decision, and who says the F-35 doesn't come out on top when they hold ANOTHER competition for a CF-18 replacement?

Did they ever hold a competition?

 

[PuckChaser]

Did they ever hold a competition?

Piggy backed onto the American competition in an effort to save money in the 90s.

 

[The Bread Guy]

According to Sun Media's David Akin via Twitter....

#F35 Joint program office has not received notice (yet?) of any change to Canada's commitment to acquire #F35.

Slightly different take from the Globe & Mail for now, again from an unnamed source....

The Conservatives, who have been heavily criticized for selecting the F-35 warplane without due regard for price and availability, will release new estimates pegging the full lifetime costs of the warplane at more than $40-billion and will consider buying alternative jets, sources say.

These numbers will be released next week.

The Harper government, which has sold itself as competent stewards of public money, was heavily embarrassed this spring when the Auditor-General said the government had lowballed the full cost of buying costly F-35 Lightning fighter jets.

The bill for 20 years alone, the Auditor-General concluded, was $25-billion rather than $9-billion as the Conservative had long said.

Separately, government sources poured cold water on a media report that said the Conservatives have killed the F-35 procurement program.

“The story is inaccurate on a number of fronts,” a senior official said.