The F-35 is not dead

[Rockie]

Maybe it's because the risk is so remote that there is no need for mitigating measures? Flying is inherently dangerous. If we were to mitigate every single risk, we wouldn't be flying. We either get a more expensive 2-engine aircraft that will be obsolete in 10 years or a single engine aircraft (that is reliable) that will take us to 2050.

Agreed. Flying is inherently risky and there are some risks so remote (due mainly to redundancies) and so consequentially insignificant they are not worth worrying about. This is not one of them both because of the obvious lack of redundancy and the potential consequences in the far north.

I disagree with your assertion that any of the other options are more expensive since the JSF has already become the most expensive fighter program in history and it's still in development. By default that makes everything else that came before it less expensive.

I also wonder how you can make such bold statements about reliability since, again, the plane is still in development and there is almost no historical data to base that statement on, especially in the arctic cold where we will be operating ours. You shouldn't believe everything you read be it from the government or glossy brochures put out by Lockheed Martin.

If everyone thought like you did, NASA would have never landed on the moon and there would be no space shuttle program. Just too risky. There are people who realize and accept the risk and there are those who don't leave their basements because they are afraid of the world. You seem to be the type who walks around in public in a giant bubble wrap costume.

Landing on the moon was a decade long national quest that pushed mankind's boundaries - well, literally to the moon. Six or seven single point events had to work perfectly during those three days or the crew would die. On the plus side there was a large army of support engineers and specialists working every minute to anticipate and solve any issue large or small that came up. That support was especially useful during Apollo 13.

Comparing that human endeavor to mundane earthly aviation is absurd.

[Old fella]

The issue is the Canadian taxpayers were deliberately misled by the CPC under PM Harper on the true cost of these F-35s and it was done during last election campaign. The Government’s numbers were proven wrong by (in order): (a) PBO (b) AG (c) KPMG.

[frosti]

I disagree with your assertion that any of the other options are more expensive since the JSF has already become the most expensive fighter program in history and it's still in development. By default that makes everything else that came before it less expensive.

Everything after the F35 will become more expensive. Its a cycle that will never end.

I also wonder how you can make such bold statements about reliability since, again, the plane is still in development and there is almost no historical data to base that statement on, especially in the arctic cold where we will be operating ours. You shouldn't believe everything you read be it from the government or glossy brochures put out by Lockheed Martin.

I don't know where you get the notion that the F35 will be less reliable in colder climates than other fighters in existence. My guess is it'll do just fine, ours operate better when its colder anyhow.

Comparing that human endeavor to mundane earthly aviation is absurd.

No, it isn't. LM is the only company pushing the limits of fighter jet technology at the present time. If you can find someone who can do it better for less money let us know. It sure won't be Canada with that pathetic Super Arrow suggestion.

The issue is the Canadian taxpayers were deliberately misled by the CPC under PM Harper on the true cost of these F-35s and it was done during last election campaign. The Government’s numbers were proven wrong by (in order): (a) PBO (b) AG (c) KPMG.

It was ALWAYS going to cost $1B a year to operate the things. That hasn't changed. Ever. The only thing that has changed was the unit cost which is unknown and will be unknown until the contracts are signed.

[Rockie]

Everything after the F35 will become more expensive. Its a cycle that will never end.

You're missing the point. Since the F35 is the most expensive fighter program in history claims that previous ones are more expensive is not true. Future fighters we'll leave until they actually make one.

I don't know where you get the notion that the F35 will be less reliable in colder climates than other fighters in existence.

You misread, I don't think the F35 will be less reliable in colder climates than other fighters. How could I know that when it's still in development and has never operated in cold climates? Conversely (pay attention because this is the point) nobody can claim it is reliable in cold climates or warm because....it's still in development.

No, it isn't. LM is the only company pushing the limits of fighter jet technology at the present time. If you can find someone who can do it better for less money let us know. It sure won't be Canada with that pathetic Super Arrow suggestion.

There is still no connection between sending men to the moon and flying single engine fighters operationally in the Canadian north. When you find one that's relevant to assumed risk vs. reward let me know.

The only thing that has changed was the unit cost which is unknown and will be unknown until the contracts are signed.

Well at least you admit that. Too bad the government didn't, and still doesn't.

[teacher]

The issue is the Canadian taxpayers were deliberately misled by the CPC under PM Harper on the true cost of these F-35s and it was done during last election campaign. The Government’s numbers were proven wrong by (in order): (a) PBO (b) AG (c) KPMG.

The PBO, AG and KPMG have all used a greater amount of years AND everything from fuel to pilot salaries to calculate the cost. That is a BS way to come up with a cost since the large majority of those costs will be borne regardless of aircraft type chosen and in case we all didn't know already, 2 engines burn more fuel than 1 . From what I've seen the over all cost of any aircraft will be within a few million dollars a year. I wonder if upgrade costs have been factored into the Super Hornet to bring it up to 5th generation avionics and weapons standards?

[Rockie]

The PBO, AG and KPMG have all used a greater amount of years AND everything from fuel to pilot salaries to calculate the cost. That is a BS way to come up with a cost since the large majority of those costs will be borne regardless of aircraft type chosen

I actually agree with this to a point (not the BS part). Maintenance, upgrades and ongoing operational costs are inevitable and will be there regardless of what we equip our forces with. It's puzzling that the Conservatives didn't think Canadians were smart enough to know that and include it in the cost estimates for the projected life of the airplane especially when this file started to heat up. It's called honesty.

Aside from ongoing costs though what the Conservatives did and continue to do is insist on unit costs that are a fantasy. Belatedly bringing ongoing costs into it was a clever distraction from the unit cost deception.

[trampbike]

The Government’s numbers were proven wrong by (in order): (a) PBO (b) AG (c) KPMG.

Please show me where in the AG report (not in journalistic reports of the AG report!) are the numbers proven wrong? I've read it extensively, and I still can't find a place where the government numbers are proven wrong.
It is true thought that the conservatives have been quite dishonest and they sure do manipulate facts and logic and disrespect every single democratic institutions.

[Rockie]

Please show me where in the AG report (not in journalistic reports of the AG report!) are the numbers proven wrong?

You won't find a smoking gun because the Americans haven't finished building it yet. But the entire report refutes the government/DND numbers as incompletely reported or based on old and perpetually changing information. Unit flyaway costs have been steadily increasing year over year making the government's assertions obsolete before they even report it.

The AG's report is a textbook dissertation on incompetence and deception.

[trampbike]

Unit flyaway costs have been steadily increasing year over year making the government's assertions obsolete before they even report it.

We'll have to agree to disagree about costs.

The AG's report is a textbook dissertation on incompetence and deception.

On this point thought, I totally agree.

[Jonathan Goldsmith]

This aircraft could have the ability to mach 2 supercruise for 2000 miles with a full warload of a dozen long range missiles able to detect and hit hostile satellites and submarines and the air between with a pair of GAU-8 cannon which can be aimed and fired by a front line soldier with an iphone, and someone here will call the decades in the future forecast of parts prices deception. You act like you hate the minister of defence because he was a better hockey player than you in 1983, grow up.

[Rockie]

You act like you hate the minister of defence because he was a better hockey player than you in 1983, grow up.

I don't hate him because I don't know him personally. In person he could be a very nice guy I'd enjoy having a beer with, however as the Defense Minister he's been the front man of an incompetent, arrogant, vindictive and deceptive government with regard to the whole F-35 file. Remember this is the bunch that swore to bring back accountability and transparency to government. How's that working out so far?

We'll have to agree to disagree about costs.

Well, read the report and note the unit flyaway cost graph at the beginning of it. It depicts a rising trend that I wish my own investment portfolio could match.

[trampbike]

Remember this is the bunch that swore to bring back accountability and transparency to government. How's that working out so far?

They did bring accountability and transparency back... then slaughtered it in front of everyone.

We'll have to agree to disagree about costs.

Well, read the report and note the unit flyaway cost graph at the beginning of it. It depicts a rising trend that I wish my own investment portfolio could match.

I did, yet I don't think that unit flyaway cost is a very good indicator of the total cost of such project. We'll see in a couple of years which one of the dozen ways to calculate the F-35 acquisition project was the right one.

[Rockie]

I did, yet I don't think that unit flyaway cost is a very good indicator of the total cost of such project.

You're absolutely right, it's not. The ongoing costs are a separate matter entirely and must be included in the total cost as well according to Treasury Board rules. The Conservatives tried to pass the extended horizon for ongoing costs as the mix up when it wasn't, unit flyaway costs are the real problem which I've stated before.

I'm not savvy enough to post the flyaway table I was referring to for the plane, but it's in chapter 2 of the report - exhibit 2.2. There is a link to the definition of the unit recurring flyaway cost in paragraph 2.11 just above. The data source for the graph is the "Joint Strike Fighter Program Office", and it shows a unit cost rising from $49.9 million in October 2001 to $84.9 million in December 2009.

With additional costs for the refueling system, drag chute and other Canadian modifications the Government used a unit cost in 2010 of around $92 million per plane. This does not include ongoing costs which are almost a non-issue since they would be incurred regardless of what Canada bought. We're just talking about unit flyaway cost.

From 2001 to 2010 the unit flyaway cost increased each year until almost doubling in 2010. That trend doesn't bode well especially since latest estimates has the plane still in development until 2018. We've already lowered the numbers of airplanes from 80 to 65 just to keep the cost the same. 65 is the absolute minimum to sustain training and expected operations, and there is no provision for replacement which based on the CF-18 is expected to be 14 airframes over approximately 36 years service.

By the way those attrition rates are with a two engine aircraft.

[Mach1]

I have an actual question about the budgeting process.

When we built the Halifax Class Frigates, did we include the operating costs in the estimate? Or, the supply ships that we are building now?

I'm asking because I don't think we did... so, if we didn't include operating costs in the acquisition costs of other projects, I am left to wonder why include them in this purchase. If the costs were included in the other purchases, then I take that to be the standard used by the government and it should be applied to all purchases.

[trampbike]

a unit cost rising from $49.9 million in October 2001 to $84.9 million in December 2009.

the Government used a unit cost in 2010 of around $92 million per plane.

It's not that bad then isn't it?

[Sheila]

I am thinking about this dark idea of F 35s and I am scratching my head. What air force is this f 35 being built for? If it is not projected or forecasted properly then it is misspent and a misappropriation of funds. This is putting it mildly. It doesn't make sense investing like this and then what? They can't be maintained so they will sell them to some other country waiting in the shadows.

[frosti]

What air force is this f 35 being built for?

They can't be maintained so they will sell them to some other country waiting in the shadows.

-All allied NATO air forces.

-What?

[Rockie]

a unit cost rising from $49.9 million in October 2001 to $84.9 million in December 2009.

the Government used a unit cost in 2010 of around $92 million per plane.

It's not that bad then isn't it?

You should look at that unit flyaway trend arrow again and realize two things:

1. We've already reduced the numbers from 80 airframes to a bare minimum of 65 because of rising cost and cannot go any lower. That does not include the additional cost of attrition losses that must be replaced, and;

2. There's still five years to go in development.

[bizjets101]

Click Here National Post story - former top defence official defends handling of F-35 file, blame Harper Government secrecy. Jan 21 2012

[boxcut]

The F-35 may not be dead but it should be taken out back and put out of its misery.

It's like the US Defense Industry and the DOD Procurement office completely forgot about the F-111 program's hurdles and problems.

[teacher]

so, if we didn't include operating costs in the acquisition costs of other projects, I am left to wonder why include them in this purchase. If the costs were included in the other purchases, then I take that to be the standard used by the government and it should be applied to all purchases.

Answer: Politics.

I am thinking about this dark idea of F 35s and I am scratching my head. What air force is this f 35 being built for? If it is not projected or forecasted properly then it is misspent and a misappropriation of funds. This is putting it mildly. It doesn't make sense investing like this and then what?

People thought the AVRO ARROW and manned fighters had no place in a modern Air Force back the too. They called it over priced and no longer relevant. That worked out well than too didn't it.

[Rockie]

so, if we didn't include operating costs in the acquisition costs of other projects, I am left to wonder why include them in this purchase. If the costs were included in the other purchases, then I take that to be the standard used by the government and it should be applied to all purchases.

Answer: Politics.

Bullshit.

Reporting life cycle costs are a longstanding requirement of both the DND and Treasury Board that was further reinforced by a specific parliamentary order back in 2010 which the government systematically ignored. These rules are in place to provide full disclosure and protection to the taxpayers who are footing 100% of the bill in case you forgot Teacher.

[Old Dog Flying]

I have watched this thread and the debate over costs and I can think back to the Arrow..same debate; the CF-100..same debate; in 1947 the RCAF wanted the Gloster Meteor, we got the Vampire...same debate; and I'll bet any money that when the government of the day bought the first aircraft ..well the same debate.

[Instructor_Mike]

People thought the AVRO ARROW and manned fighters had no place in a modern Air Force back the too. They called it over priced and no longer relevant. That worked out well than too didn't it.

And yet even with the scrapping of the Arrow, the Soviets didn't come running over the cap. (For the record I don't think the Arrow should have been scrapped the way it was but that is another debate).

There was a post (I can't find it now) about how the cost overruns and projected costs may just be fear tactics from the media, but what about the possibility of swinging that the other way? Why the fear that if we don't have this aircraft (whenever it is ready) that the end is here for Canada. We don't have the F-35 now and we've been getting by just fine. The F-18s we have need replacement, but why do we even need a drastic upgrade to top of the line? For example, the Americans still use B-52 is from the 50s and is still in active service (numbers reduced obviously). Why does it have to be top of the line to be effective?

I'm not going to claim to be informed in all these matters, but I really don't understand the rational of spending money on war when we could be spending on exploring space or healing the sick etc. Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist. :-/

[2R]

The US is looking at spending cuts for defense.Cutting the F-35 programmes will be easy as the Americans do not need it.