The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Arjen]

Tick, tock.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As noted elsewhere, a curious choice for a headline. In the real world, that decision is 15-20 years away.

One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches.

Isn't it odd that when a Major General makes a speech its a clear sign that the end is nigh, but when the Secretary of the Air Force confirms "1,763" its not worth reading anything into?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Unlocked.

This topic is for any random rants, politically based or other discussions about the F-35 All previous F-35 topics are in there, pending someone sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Any moderators are welcome to fish out relevant posts to place in the F-35 news topics.

Any good news about the F-35 project - milestones achieved, technical successes etc. should go in the Lockheed Martin F-35: Good News thread.

Any bad news about the F-35 project (milestones missed, cost overruns, etc) should go in the Lockheed Martin F-35: Bad News thread.


Hopefully this will allow pro-F-35 fanboys to post a bunch of "F-35 taxxied on a runway - Go Lockheed, awesome!" messages undisturbed by naysayers, while the doom merchants can live in their own topic where F-35 is going to be cancelled next Tuesday and replaced with more F-16s and probably won't work anyway.

And yes, I am being sarcastic because it seems incredible a bunch of (mostly) grown adults can get so childish.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Tick, tock.

LRIP 5 deal done yesterday

 

[Arjen]

LRIP 5 deal done yesterday

The delay in reaching a deal on LRIP 5 was caused by disagreement between Lockheed Martin and the Department of Defence. Sequestration, if it happens, will be the result of strife in Congress, causing automatic cuts, resulting in financial mayhem for all departments. The F-35 project being as big as it is, it is extremely unlikely to escape cuts if sequestration hits.
'Moving the cliff' to January 2014 would give the US government some room to solve the budget crisis, but is dependent on there being an agreement either on 'moving the cliff' or Republicans and Democrats hammering out an agreement on the budget. Not much headway on either is apparent. In the event of sequestration, financing the F-35 project will not be the highest priority. In this context, USAF intentions of achieving a 1,753-strong F-35 fleet may have to take a backseat to political realities.

 

[GTX]

In this context, USAF intentions of achieving a 1,753-strong F-35 fleet may have to take a backseat to political realities.

Though equally, one could say that a one year, or even multi-year financial difficulties, could pale into insignificance oven the many years that the USAF will be acquiring F-35s. For instance, dod you really imagine anyone will care about this year's woes in 2029? Therefore, this is also every reason to argue that the USAF will get 1753 or even more F-35s...

 

[Arjen]

My notion is that sequestration is a direct threat to all government funding, F-35 project included. I believe that was what LowObservable was referring to with his remark 'One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches'. The USAF still being intent on eventually acquiring 1,753 F-35s at this moment is less of a news item than the current threat to F-35 funding that is posed by sequestration.

Even if sequestration is avoided, this might be in a way that involves cuts in F-35 funding. LO, by his own words, is expecting some news regarding F-35 funding. So am I.

As to what will have happened by 2029: I honestly don't know. In the early nineties, I was expecting upwards of 500 F-22s in USAF service by 2010. That didn't happen. If I'm still around in 2029, I'll have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I was expecting upwards of 500 F-22s in USAF service by 2010. That didn't happen. If I'm still around in 2029, I'll have the benefit of hindsight.

Is that a reflection on the aircraft?

Sequestration has a lot more to do with political infighting than the F-35. I know it won't be painted like that by the F-35s detractors who will have headlines like :

F-35 cut!! (And a whole bunch of other defense too)

 

[Arjen]

I was expecting upwards of 500 F-22s in USAF service by 2010. That didn't happen. If I'm still around in 2029, I'll have the benefit of hindsight.

Is that a reflection on the aircraft?

No reflection on the aircraft, but cuts in any project's funding will be influenced by
- how well it is run,
- what the project delivers and how it fits the needs of the customer,
- at what price and after how much time it is delivered
- and of course does-my-constituency-have-a-stake-in-it

Sequestration has a lot more to do with political infighting than the F-35.

That seems to be the general opinion.

I know it won't be painted like that by the F-35s detractors who will have headlines like :

F-35 cut!! (And a whole bunch of other defense too)

I expect if sequestration hits - and I hope it doesn't - headlines will be different. People will be very busy detracting other stuff.

 

[kcran567]

If the f-35 isn't just completely cancelled at this point, I would expect around 350 to be made in total. In the year "2029" looking back.


On a side note: since Canada soberly decided the f-35 was ridiculously expensive, should we now expect a soon coming Al-Qaeda style terrorist attack in Canada? C'mon, they just slapped the worlds most powerful military/industrial/banking complex in the face. And we all know Al Qaeda is just another created tool to be used to threaten "rogue" governments with to keep in line and take rights away from.


Seriously, it could happen.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If the f-35 isn't just completely cancelled at this point, I would expect around 350 to be made in total. In the year "2029" looking back.

It takes a strange brand of imagination to think that just because Canadians cancel their order of 65 aircraft that the whole program is now toast. I'm sorry Canada, you aren't the F-35 lynch pin you think are. Just to put it in perspective, Canada is 35 million people and was going to buy 65 aircraft. Norway is 5 million and is going to buy 52. the USAF reaffirmed the 1700+ they are planning.

On a side note: since Canada soberly decided the f-35 was ridiculously expensive, should we now expect a soon coming Al-Qaeda style terrorist attack in Canada? C'mon, they just slapped the worlds most powerful military/industrial/banking complex in the face. And we all know Al Qaeda is just another created tool to be used to threaten "rogue" governments with to keep in line and take rights away from.

Seriously, it could happen.

Thats priceless. Again Canada is a drop in the bucket. You canceled an order of 65 aircraft that will just go to the next country in line. The program will be fine. however Canada loses out on billions of aerospace dollars:

http://www.compositesatlantic.com/indexinside.php?category=Products%20%3Cbr%3Eand%20Services&categoryx=Products%20%3Cbr%3Eand%20Services&page=121&therank=54

and won't be getting any of the money they already contributed to the JSF research program back-- Thanks for donating Canada!! In the meantime the Canadian jobs and revenue the F-35 would have generated for Canada will go elsewhere, and further solidify the JSF to partner nations.

 

[2IDSGT]

On a side note: since Canada soberly decided the f-35 was ridiculously expensive, should we now expect a soon coming Al-Qaeda style terrorist attack in Canada? C'mon, they just slapped the worlds most powerful military/industrial/banking complex in the face. And we all know Al Qaeda is just another created tool to be used to threaten "rogue" governments with to keep in line and take rights away from.


Seriously, it could happen.

Yeah, I got nothing for that. Reported.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Reported.

That is probably the best solution, rather than a long lecture about how a strong military keeps other countries from taking your rights away providing you are willing to spend on one...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/06/poli-f35-pmo-government-fighter-jets.html

Much ado about nothing :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And we all know Al Qaeda is just another created tool to be used to threaten "rogue" governments with to keep in line and take rights away from.

Suddenly your staunch opposition to the F-35 is starting to make sense...

 

[RyanC]

Le CF-18H Savoir Frelon, anyone?

 

[RyanC]

As noted elsewhere, a curious choice for a headline. In the real world, that decision is 15-20 years away.

Quite. What its saying is that the USAF has reiterated it's desire for 1,700 F-35. The reality is probably a significant digit less, to be honest; and looking back on history, the final production F-35 order will occur in the FY2030 budget or thereabouts; a long long ways from now.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As noted elsewhere, a curious choice for a headline. In the real world, that decision is 15-20 years away.

Quite. What its saying is that the USAF has reiterated it's desire for 1,700 F-35. The reality is probably a significant digit less, to be honest; and looking back on history, the final production F-35 order will occur in the FY2030 budget or thereabouts; a long long ways from now.

So it could go either way. I didn't exactly predict a massive spike in military spending and expansion of the armed forces on September 10 2001. Its all on your perspective. Remember that many F-35 alternatives suggested on this very forum are continuing production on Legacy aircraft like the Eagle and Viper, decades after they first started production and with numbers in the thousands. like you said we will know in a couple decades.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The reality is probably a significant digit less, to be honest;

Does not equal:

and looking back on history, the final production F-35 order will occur in the FY2030 budget or thereabouts; a long long ways from now.

So you’re saying the F-35A for USAF will have a total production run of around 200 units spread over 15 odd years! Or around 12 aircraft per annum…. Which is pretty bizarre considering Lot 5 already has almost twice as many units per annum for USAF.

Despite the manipulation of language USAF has a *requirement* for 1,700 units and is doing everything it can to meet this goal. It’s not some teenage nerd’s, unrealistic, unrequited *desire* for the homecoming queen…

 

[Triton]

Canadian companies, who may or may not be, contributing to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

 

[jsport]

Wow, thank you Triton..
Muchos Gracias

 

[RyanC]

So you’re saying the F-35A for USAF will have a total production run of around 200 units spread over 15 odd years!

I said 'significant digit less', which turns out to be one less zero; or 700 aircraft, instead of 1,700.

As for the production length, I was basing that off the F-22A, which had the last production aircraft ordered in FY10, some 23 years after the first aircraft were ordered in FY87.

The first F-35s were ordered in FY07, so 23 years of time brings us up to FY30.

Despite the manipulation of language USAF has a *requirement* for 1,700 units and is doing everything it can to meet this goal.

USAF once required/desired 650 F-22A, then 381, then....well, we all know how that turned out. We also have the looming fiscal budgetary problems ahead of us for added 'fun'.

EDIT: We also have other contigents in the US military industrial complex that are desirious of regeneration of *their* slice of the pie in that forthcoming time period, like the notational new SLBM to go with the SSBN(X) Ohio replacement. Where's the money for that going to come from?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I said 'significant digit less', which turns out to be one less zero; or 700 aircraft, instead of 1,700.

Finally some clarity! Of course one significant digit less can also mean 1,700 is reduced to 170 but I was generous and rounded that up to 200 for you. But now you want it to be 700. Why you couldn’t write that in the first place is beyond me.

USAF once required/desired 650 F-22A, then 381, then....well, we all know how that turned out. We also have the looming fiscal budgetary problems ahead of us for added 'fun'.

And of course USAF once only required or “desired” just 500 North American Mustangs and they ended up with quite a few more. Same can be said for the Sabre, Phantom, F-16 and Predator. But don’t let that get in the way of cherry picking examples from history to align with a preconceived point of view.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for the production length, I was basing that off the F-22A, which had the last production aircraft ordered in FY10, some 23 years after the first aircraft were ordered in FY87.

The first F-35s were ordered in FY07, so 23 years of time brings us up to FY30.

USAF once required/desired 650 F-22A, then 381, then....well, we all know how that turned out. We also have the looming fiscal budgetary problems ahead of us for added 'fun'.

And of course the F-22 was an internationally developed program, and widely exported, a single engined multi role fighter that is a replacement for air forces and Navies around the world and optimized for cost across three major versions. I think the most controversial F-22 variant was the STOVL, followed closely by Carrier Borne version.

EDIT: We also have other contigents in the US military industrial complex that are desirious of regeneration of *their* slice of the pie in that forthcoming time period, like the notational new SLBM to go with the SSBN(X) Ohio replacement. Where's the money for that going to come from?

Probably from the nearly 900 billion dollars divided and allocated specifically amongst the fours services every year? What do i win? even with cuts spread evenly across the services its still a crap ton of money. This aint Canada, baby. Also the USAF in a budget crunch will do what adults do-- cut some things to make room for others (they are doing that right now in fact, as they have for years). They will not be cutting the F-35. Its disappointing to the anti F-35 crew, but the US Army is going to be the hardest hit:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/fy-2013-defense-budget-request-force-structure-changes/

The Air Force’s portion of the FY 2013 budget is $110.1 billion. FY12 was $115.2 billion.

since when does the USAF buying something affect the Navy budget?

 

[Arjen]

since when does the USAF buying something affect the Navy budget?

Since 18 September 1947, when the USAF came into being.
There is a finite federal budget.
This has to be divided.
What is spent on the USAF can not be spent on the US Navy.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

since when does the USAF buying something affect the Navy budget?

Since 18 September 1947, when the USAF came into being.
There is a finite federal budget.
This has to be divided.
What is spent on the USAF can not be spent on the US Navy.

I get what you are saying in the "big picture" sense. But in the case of the DoD budget everyone has their own allocated portion, and has since 1947 as you point out. The Idea that the air force would exceed their budget wouldn't result in the USAF taking from the Navy. It would result in the USAF being broke until the next FY when it gets its new budget for the year. The USAF impaled itself to get the F-22 sacrificing many projects to the "Raptor Gods" but at no point did it affect any services budget but their own.

Its worth comparing USAF projects to USAF projects, and Navy Projects to Navy projects in the case of budgets, but Navy Submarines do not hinge on air force jets. (If you would like to abolish or gut the USAF or USN to feed the other, I'm all ears)

 

[Arjen]

In the long run, sacrificing other USAF projects to the benefit of the F-35 will affect the ability of the USAF to fulfil the tasks the F-35 is not designed for.

The USAF apparently already has decided the tasks to be performed by the F-35 are more important than (any?) other USAF tasks, to the point of cutting in the ability to execute some of those other tasks. However, it isn't solely up to the USAF to decide which of its assigned tasks it is allowed to sacrifice: that ultimately is the prerogative of the politicians. National defense being the complicated issue it is, the politicians *will* consider cross-service which DoD tasks are more important than others.

In this context, submarines and air force jets *will* be judged at the same time.

 

[LowObservable]

There is an informal "golden rule" that ensures that any budgetary pain should be divided equally as far as the main departments are concerned, which tends to keep the services' budgets in a constant ratio, but there is certainly no statutory requirement to that effect, and resources can be shifted among the armed services (not to mention the IC) without the pre-approval of Congress.

JSF is an interesting case in that R&D has been split 50:50 between the AF and the Navy. (This allows the Navy to complain that their offtake of aircraft is smaller, while the AF can complain that the B and C are the most expensive versions to develop.) However, clearly, cutbacks by either side that would increase the unit cost would then impact other Navy and AF procurements.

 

[Broncazonk]

For F-35 Debacle: (It’s all about...)

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/11/for-f-35-debacle-its-now-all-about-who-the-guns-are-being-fired-at/

Michael Den Tandt - Published: December 11, 2012, 4:08 pm

No matter what happens now, the F-35 episode will stand as a spectacular example of how not to manage an important public project. One can call it ramshackle, slipshod, inept, dishonest and incompetent, and not even begin to do events justice. Had they deliberately set out to spiral-dive their reputations for sound management and probity into the ground, Peter MacKay & Co. could not have done a better job than the record shows these past three years.

What the government can do, in its announcement expected Wednesday or early Thursday, is staunch the bleeding. Evidently they intend to try.

Since Postmedia News reported last Thursday that the F-35 fighter procurement, as a sole-source purchase, is dead, the government has been in full damage-control mode. Poor Jacques Gourde, parliamentary secretary for the minister of Public Works, was propped up in the House of Commons to deflect calls for MacKay’s ouster. The defence minister’s own parliamentary secretary, Chris Alexander, was wheeled out to take ack-ack fire on TV and radio. Alexander, who was a capable ambassador to Kabul not so long ago, has looked displeased with his mission. Few would blame him. The Prime Minister himself, of course, resorted to the economic argument: It’s all about the jobs, for Canadian workers building widgets for the F-35.

Unclear, yet, is how $435-million in defence sub-contracts – that’s the latest tally from Industry Canada – justifies the $40-billion-plus expenditure of public money envisioned in the KPMG audit, which precipitated the government’s reversal. Also unclear is the extent to which these contracts are even in jeopardy, setting aside which aircraft is eventually selected to replace the RCAF’s ageing F-18s.

MacKay, who alongside his former associate minister, Julian Fantino (and of course Harper) is most responsible for the wreckage, has all but vanished. It’s been left to Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, the only minister with any connection to the F-35 who still has any credibility, to pick her way through the debris. She will do so, it is widely expected, by unveiling either a competition for the fighter contract, or a process that will lead to one.

This will happen, for now, with Canada still a signatory to the F-35 Memorandum of Understanding – which, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, has never precluded a competition. It’s plain in the text, in section 3.2.111. “Actual procurement of JSF Air Vehicles by the Participants will be subject to the Participants’ national laws and regulations and the outcome of the Participants’ national procurement decision-making processes.” Denmark, one of the original nine F-35 Consortium members, initiated a competitive bidding process in 2007.

The counter spin to the KPMG audit will hold, first, that assessing costs on a 40-year timeline is distortive, because the numbers obviously must rise if you tally 40 years’ flight time compared with, say, 20. The government’s defenders will further argue that the jets’ base acquisition cost is still $9-billion, as stated in 2010. Finally, they’ll say the F-35 would not be particularly different, cost-wise, from competing fighters such as Saab’s Gripen, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon. The first argument is technically correct but politically untenable, because of sticker shock. The latter two arguments are simply wrong.

The $9-billion is predicated on a new per-plane price of about $90-million, according to reports. Independent estimates of the all-in per-plane cost of an F-35, including the weapons systems, come in at $150-million or more. Even that, at best, is an educated guess. The price is tied to the number of orders in a given year. If there are further delays or cancellations – which is likely, given recessions in Europe and Japan – the cost rises. This does not apply to the four other competing aircraft, which, unlike the F-35, are already fully developed and flying in militaries around the world.

In unveiling their new-new process, chastened ministers will shelter beneath Ambrose’s personal Harry Potter invisibility cloak, which she has earned by not engaging in the asinine talking-point babble that has become a substitute for reason in this House of Commons. They will continue to exploit Alexander’s reputation, until it too no longer functions.

What they cannot so easily address is why MacKay, Fantino, the apparatus of the Prime Minister’s Office, and Harper himself, ignored so many credible warnings, which came from so many credible quarters, that sole-sourcing the F-35 was a terrible idea. Nor can they undo that, for months on end, they met these legitimate voices, such as that of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, with contempt. Page, who was just doing his job, was proven almost exactly right. The government, which was not doing its job, was proven almost exactly wrong.

The jet purchase they can fix, with a competition. The cast of mind that got them here, not so much. Absent a radical overhaul of cabinet, and a miraculous transformation in their approach to wielding power, they will wear it. It’s too colossal a bungle to set aside.

 

[2IDSGT]

Previously, from the same publication as Bronc's editorial... http://o.canada.com/2012/09/10/shot-by-the-arrow-storied-aircraft-suggested-as-alternative-for-f-35s/



Shot by the Arrow: storied aircraft suggested as alternative for F-35s
The Canadian Press
September 10 2012

OTTAWA – A Canadian company is seeking to go back in time to help fly Canada’s air force into the future.

Documents obtained by the Global News program “The West Block” indicate an update to the storied CF-105 Avro Arrow was put forward as an alternative to the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets.

And among the project’s champions is one of Canada’s top soldiers, retired Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.

The Arrow was an advanced, all-weather supersonic interceptor jet developed in the 1950s but the project was scrapped before a the plane could be put into production.

MacKenzie told the “The West Block” that the Arrow’s basic design and platform still exceed any current fighter jet and it is perfect for Canada’s needs.

“It’s an attack aircraft. It’s designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets,” MacKenzie said.

“What we need in Canada is something that can go to the edge of our airspace, from a sovereignty point of view, and be able to catch up with intruders.”

The plan to build an updated Arrow in Canada instead of buying into an international deal for a fleet of F-35s was originally put before the Harper Conservatives in 2010 by a company called Bourdeau Industries, which has offices in the U.K. and Canada.

The proposal, which was updated in 2012, suggested the plane could fly 20,000 feet higher than the F-35, soar twice as fast and would cost less.

For example, the proposal said that the total cost of the Arrow program would be $11.73 billion, compared to the $16 billion the federal government says the F-35 program will cost.

That F-35 figure has been disputed by the auditor general and parliamentary budget officer, who peg the true cost of the new stealth fighters at closer to $25 billion.

The Arrow project would also create a made-in-Canada plane and an industry that would add thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the Canadian economy, the proposal’s author wrote.

“The government of Canada is in a position to project foreign policy initiatives within the global community while simultaneously leading Canada’s socio-economic capabilities to rise to real security, defence and industrial policy challenges at home and abroad,” the proposal said.

But in June, the government rejected the plan, saying too much money and time was required to execute it and the plane didn’t meet the technical specifications required.

“Unfortunately, what is proposed is not a viable option for Canada’s next generation fighter,” said a letter from Julian Fantino, who was then Canada’s associate minister for national defence.

Meanwhile, the plans for the F-35s remain on hold.

Last spring the auditor general tore a strip off the government, accusing the Department of National Defence of hiding $10 billion in continuing costs for the fighter and the Public Works department of not doing enough homework to justify the purchase.

Conservatives responded with a seven-point action plan that took responsibility for the plane away from defence, giving it to a secretariat at Public Works.

Last week the government announced it has hired the accounting firm KPMG to crunch the numbers on the program.

 

[aam641]

Previously, from the same publication as Bronc's editorial... http://o.canada.com/2012/09/10/shot-by-the-arrow-storied-aircraft-suggested-as-alternative-for-f-35s/

Shot by the Arrow: storied aircraft suggested as alternative for F-35s

That's a good one, I somehow missed it in September. Are you sure it wasn't published on April 1st?

Resurrecting the Arrow airframe, building 100 of them, adding new engines, new weapons, and new electronics in 8 years. And all of that for $100 million per unit? Anybody seeing a problem with that? It makes the $90 million price tag for F-35 look downright sensible.

“It’s an attack aircraft. It’s designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets,” MacKenzie said.

What are this guy's qualifications? Arrow may have been a nice aircraft, but it was a pure interceptor with stealth of a flying barn.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Unclear, yet, is how $435-million in defence sub-contracts – that’s the latest tally from Industry Canada – justifies the $40-billion-plus expenditure of public money envisioned in the KPMG audit, which precipitated the government’s reversal. Also unclear is the extent to which these contracts are even in jeopardy, setting aside which aircraft is eventually selected to replace the RCAF’s ageing F-18s.

I'm just going to tackle this part, because you went bold on it and it clearly fooled you

435 million is what Canadian industry has mad so far-- as of 2012 that is. Canadian industry stand to make between $12 -14 billion over the life of their F-35s on the "high end" even the most radical anti F-35 critics give a "low end" estimate of $9 billion which means at worst the cost of aircraft "break even" leaving operational cost. Canada buying a a paltry 65 aircraft gives them industrial perks for a fleet that will be in the thousands.

 

[sferrin]

What are this guy's qualifications? Arrow may have been a nice aircraft, but it was a pure interceptor with stealth of a flying barn.

Apparently "Arrow" is a type of wine as it appears to get better with age. Fifty years from now it'll be better than Clint Eastwood's Firefox. ;D

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What are this guy's qualifications? Arrow may have been a nice aircraft, but it was a pure interceptor with stealth of a flying barn.

Apparently "Arrow" is a type of wine as it appears to get better with age. Fifty years from now it'll be better than Clint Eastwood's Firefox. ;D

As if it wasn't already?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-billion

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-changes-jet-plans-as-audit-pegs-f-35-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/

Steven Chase - OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

The “cradle-to-grave” bill to taxpayers for buying and operating the controversial F-35 warplane will exceed $600-million per jet – or $45-billion in total, the government announced Wednesday. The Tories originally sold the aircraft as a $9-billion purchase.

And here is the largest problem that I have with most of the F-35 reporting.

In one breath they describe the complete, 42 year cost of developing, buying, training for, maintaining, and disposing of 65 F-35s and in the next breath they compare that to the purchase only cost thereby making people think that they were lied to. It's two completely different things!!!

Tell me, when you buy a car for $25k are you upset that you have to buy insurance, gas, maintenance fees, etc for the next 10 years? I wish some people would just use their heads instead of reading headlines and making decisions based on that.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-billion

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-changes-jet-plans-as-audit-pegs-f-35-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/

Steven Chase - OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

The “cradle-to-grave” bill to taxpayers for buying and operating the controversial F-35 warplane will exceed $600-million per jet – or $45-billion in total, the government announced Wednesday. The Tories originally sold the aircraft as a $9-billion purchase.

And here is the largest problem that I have with most of the F-35 reporting.

In one breath they describe the complete, 42 year cost of developing, buying, training for, maintaining, and disposing of 65 F-35s and in the next breath they compare that to the purchase only cost thereby making people think that they were lied to. It's two completely different things!!!

Tell me, when you buy a car for $25k are you upset that you have to buy insurance, gas, maintenance fees, etc for the next 10 years? I wish some people would just use their heads instead of reading headlines and making decisions based on that.

You would think they almost have an agenda, or a narrative...

 

[Arjen]

Tell me, when you buy a car for $25k are you upset that you have to buy insurance, gas, maintenance fees, etc for the next 10 years?

Tell me, do you buy a car at all if you don't have the money to run it?

 

[SpudmanWP]

When I go shopping for a car, I already know that it will cost me much more than just the purchase price over the next 10 years. I do not need the salesman to tell em every single cost that I might have to pay for those ten years.

For instance, I recently bought a Ford Focus for $15k . Here are the annual costs:

1. $4000 for gas
2. $500 for oil changes, tuneups normal maintenace & parts
3. $500 for tires
4. $1800 for Insurance
5. $250 for major repair fund

So its total 10-year cost is $85,500 (or 5.7 times more than the purchase price)

I go into buying a car knowing that over the lifetime that it will cost me many times the purchase price. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Also, if the salesman tells me that it will cost X over the next 5 years, I don't go bonkers screaming that he did not tell me what it will cost me till the day I send it to the junkyard.

It's called commonsense, which unfortunately is not to common.

 

[Arjen]

We appear to agree that considering 'cradle-to-grave' costs is a very sensible way of coming to grips with the real costs of owning anything. One of the nasty surprises in the F-35 saga is running costs being considerably higher than expected - well, as presented anyway as late as 2010, when buying the F-35 was considered a no-brainer by Harper, MacKay and the rest. That becoming public, not the initial buying price, is what's making the Canadian government reconsider buying the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

We appear to agree that considering 'cradle-to-grave' costs is a very sensible way of coming to grips with the real costs of owning anything. One of the nasty surprises in the F-35 saga is running costs being considerably higher than expected - well, as presented anyway as late as 2010, when buying the F-35 was considered a no-brainer by Harper, MacKay and the rest. That becoming public, not the initial buying price, is what's making the Canadian government reconsider buying the F-35.

That's what happens when you factor in the cost for half a century. : Imagine the outrage if the 50 year cost was factored in for the B-52 when they originally sold them. This exercise is nothing more than people pushing an agenda. AvWeek pointed out that the 50 year cost for the F-35 program would be about that of the F-15. (And you can be certain it will be cheaper than the F/A-18/Super Hornet/F-16/ and Harrier programs all lumped together then extrapolated out for 50 years.)

 

[Arjen]

The Canadian government is reconsidering buying F-35 because the F-35's projected operating costs, as cited in KPMG's survey, are much higher than Harper, Mackay and others were leading the Canadian voters to believe as recent as 2010.

It's the Canadian government itself, including Harper and Mackay, that, in your words is 'pushing an agenda' backtracking on a decision that was backed with some fervour just two years ago. Can't for the life of me imagine what kind of agenda that would be, so I await your explanation with much curiosity.