F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

Wonder if there is team of analysts deep in the bowels of the Brick Brain feverishly working out the "real"  42 year costs of operating the new Hercules J Fleet and the C17s for all that time.

Surely we'll have those around for 42 years and Canadians will want to know how much more they really cost as compared to the el-cheapo price Harper told us the equipment would cost.

DND had better get some folks working on the  $$number to design, build, operate, maintain and upgrade the City class Frigates for 42 years as well.  I'm thinking that will be "largest defense procurement in modern Canadian history, knocking the F-35 off that much touted podium.

Because some enterprising young journalist is bound to ask for that cost data as well, just because.

It is only fair that all government spending be priced over 42 years.  How will we ever be able to compare value when different criteria apply to different costs?

 

[Edward Campbell]

It actually would be a good idea for the Auditor General to delve into the business of "life cycles." Perhaps he, not DND pr the cabinet, should set some "to be assumed for accounting purposes" life cycles for various major systems: ships of different classes, land vehicles of various types and aircraft of various types, too. The DND and parliament can work from one "baseline."

 

[AlexanderM]

No problem, but when they come up with numbers on cost, over a 40 year period, they should also include how it fits into the military budget, or someone should.  1 billion per year for fighters, including operational costs, isn't going to sink the military budget, neither are these other expenses.  With a military budget of over 20 billion per year, that is 800 billion over 40 years, so put it in perspective.  We can afford some equipment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Of course we can afford equipment. But we Canadians, taxpayers, should be told, by parliament, how much we are spending on the defence of our country on a consistent basis - that means ALL major systems (like ships and aircraft) and projects (like IT and works and buildings) should be "costed" on a life cycle basis and it means that DND should manage its money on an accural basis, with minimum (not no) interference from parliament.

 

[AlexanderM]

I agree, but it should still be put in perspective with the overall military budget, otherwise people are just coming out with these big numbers and freaking out taxpayers.  It's one thing to say, the fighters are going to cost 45 billion dollars, and have people saying, holy crap.  It's another thing to say, the fighters will cost 45 billion dollars and here's how it nicely fits into the military budget over those 40 years.  Then people might say, oh, ok.

 

[Haletown]

Good set of links to follow up the day's events.



http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:1eb5c615-730c-42fc-9ca3-50613e0f081b

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here's all the documents released today in a honkin' (130+ page PDF) file here in case the links listed earlier in the thread don't work for you.

Edited to add this from National Post columnist John Ivison - highlights mine:

.... While the Auditor General was clear that ministers were often kept in the dark by the bureaucrats and uniforms, our Westminster system of government means ministers ultimately bear responsibility. The theory is that if they didn’t know what was going on, they should have.

Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, has said he was not involved in the file after Julian Fantino took over the procurement file after the 2011 election.

But fairly or not, he is carrying the can for the whole file. He explained why he became such an advocate of the F-35 at the press conference Wednesday: “I feel passionately about my obligation to ensure the Canadian Forces have the best equipment to ensure mission success – they assume unlimited liability.”

This passion seems to have blunted his political antenna about the sharp practice that clearly operated in National Defence. As the government takes on water over this file, as it will do, it is hard to see how Mr. MacKay can continue in his post ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The morning papers are full of (generally ill informed) prognostications about the F-35. John Ivision, in the National Post suggests that politics, not military operational requirements or costs, will drive the government to anything but the F-35. David Bercuson, in the Globe and Mail, lays the blame more accurately on a mix of a messed up (for generations, since the 1970s, at least) defence procurement system and Canadians who, quite simply, don't care enough about how and why their governments spend their money. Meanwhile, in the Ottawa Citizen, Lee Berthiaume and Mark Kennedy give a figure filled history of the costs, including some entirely predictable and equally useless sideline commentary from Bob Rae - presumably to provide "journalistic balance."

 

[Haletown]

The morning papers are full of (generally ill informed) prognostications about the F-35.

Indeed.  Our glorious Press Corpse.

They  seem to be really enjoying the opportunity to confuse, obfuscate and misunderstand what is going on.  Or they do understand and are really enjoying the opportunity to go Postal on the Eeevil Neocon Harperbots.

Whatever, the amusement value is still pretty good for free news.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Can we do a full life-cycle cost review for the CBC?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Indeed.  Our glorious Press Corpse.

They  seem to be really enjoying the opportunity to confuse, obfuscate and misunderstand what is going on.  Or they do understand and are really enjoying the opportunity to go Postal on the Eeevil Neocon Harperbots.

Whatever, the amusement value is still pretty good for free news.

Politically, this represents a crack in the Conservatives veneer of "good management."

The aircraft, and the RCAF's operational requirement, are very, very secondary issues.

Some journalists are quite happy to concede that the F-35 might well be the best choice - most operationally effective and most cost effective - but that doesn't matter: what matters is that they, the journalists, can use this to get revenge of Stephen Harper for all his sins, real and imagined, against the pure, high minded, eminently fair media. Journalists understand what David Bercuson said in the Globe and Mail: Canadians neither know nor care very much about national defence or military equipment, but they know that they don't like to spend money - especially not on symphony orchestras or the military. Journalists also know that they can use the F-35 debacle - and I think ALL major defence procurement projects are debacles: mismanaged in and by a system that is designed to waste resources - to attack the government's main "message:" you can trust us to manage the economy.

I don't know what aircraft we will get; I don't think Stephen Harper cares what aircraft we will get; this - replacing the CF-18 - is now a political problem and the four person panel is the PM's preferred route towards a solution. If they say Saab Gripen E then that's what the RCAF will fly - in whatever quantities we can get for n billion dollars over nn years.

 

[Maxadia]

Which will be a billion per year, the going rate.  If I had a fighter that I was offering up, why would I want to offer it at a rate substantially lower than what other companies are trying to get?

It's like buying a car from the dealer....hidden costs, docking fees, etc.  Oh, you want lower payments?  We'll make the term longer?  Cut the cost of that?  Okay, we'll increase this. 

 

[Good2Golf]

What are the odds we'll ever see the following article title?

"Tories to scrap F-35 project started by Liberals in 2002."


:crickets:

 

[The Bread Guy]

What are the odds we'll ever see the following article title?

"Tories to scrap F-35 project started by Liberals in 2002."

Or even as far back as 1997, according to Postmedia, anyway, if you want to go as far back as "just JSF"....

:crickets:

Yup.

Then again, this is one message coming from the Liberal side when reminded that they bought into the system pretty early on - via Twitter:

our government funded a technology not F-35

 

[Haletown]

What are the odds we'll ever see the following article title?

"Tories to scrap F-35 project started by Liberals in 2002."
:crickets:

After we see this one:

"Tories Screw Up Liberal Shipboard Helicopter Program"

 

[Haletown]

Anyone come across a reference that says if the $45b are Constant Year dollars have they put in an inflation factor.

 

[Old Sweat]

And here is a newly posted column by John Ivison on the National Post site which throughs a bit of common sense onto the dog fight. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

John Ivison: There are no cheap alternatives to the F-35s for Canada
Dec 13, 2012 7:19 PM ET

I may be alone in this (which wouldn’t be the first time), but I don’t believe the federal Conservatives will suffer as much fallout from their mishandling of the F-35 jet fighter purchase as is presently being forecast.

There is no question that they botched it. Royally. They bought into the military’s argument that no other plane could possibly deliver the capabilities of the F-35, and that Canada couldn’t get by with anything less. Whether they were duped in this by the F-35′s fans in the military and the bureaucracy, or willingly went along is up for debate …

Still, the notion that the damage to the government will be deep and long-lasting strikes me as unlikely.

Canadians likely reacted with either confusion or anger when they saw the $46-billion price tag for the F-35 fighter jets.

The confused, among whom I count myself, asked: How can we possibly calculate operating costs 42 years into the future when we can’t accurately predict the price of gas next week? This is an imperfect science — if, for example, inflation exceeds the rate anticipated, billions would be added to the $46-billion price-tag.

The angry took the numbers at face value and demanded we go with a cheaper option.

The problem is, though, that a cheaper replacement for the CF-18s may be hard to find.

At the same time as the Canadian government was pushing its reset button on the F-35s, the Australian government revealed it is thinking about buying 24 more Boeing Super Hornets fighters, to add to the 24 it bought recently. The first two dozen were seen as a bridge between the Royal Australian Air Force’s existing fighters and the delayed arrival of the F-35s. But the RAAF is so happy with the Super Hornet, defence minister Stephen Smith says the plane is no longer a transitional aircraft. Australia intended to buy 100 F-35s and sell back the Super Hornets to the U.S. government. Now Mr. Smith says the plane, with its Growler electronics system that jams land-based radar, will play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the forseeable future.

“We are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike Fighters [F-35s] as a mixed fleet,” said Mr. Smith.

This is good news for Canada, since it constitutes an endorsement of the Super Hornet by a close ally. The bad news is the price the Aussies are likely to pay.

The auditor general put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period.

We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each.

Boeing will no doubt now send a team of accountants to their adding machines to disprove those numbers — or provide an explanation why apples are not being ranked against apples. There’s no doubt that, even though the government admitted the acquisition cost per F-35 has risen from $75-million to $88-million, that number is likely to bubble up further still. Most people expect that, if Canada ever buys the F-35, we will end up paying over $100-million per plane.

Since I don’t trust any of these projections, I use them the way the proverbial drunk man uses a lamp-post — for support, rather than illumination.

The point is, there are no cheap options out there. If we accept we need the capability to police our own half of the continent, and contribute to overseas operations as part of a multi-national military alliance, then we should just suck it up and stop whining about the cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ivison's a rare scunner if ever there was yin.

And he would recognize that declaration if he saw it.

After helping to drum up the mob he now proclaims himself the voice of reason.  He has spent as much time as anybody castigating the government, the DND, the RCAF, the Yanks and Lockmart over the purchase.  NOW he purports that he understands the arguments that rationalize the purchase.

He's no just a scunner, he's glaikit gin he thinks that it is no obvious he has no other purpose than promoting the Ivison byline.

An mair's the pity he's from Ayrshire.

 

[a_majoor]

This blogger comes up with a price list of the various fighter aircraft that can be considered. Given the various ways pricing can be "adjusted", it is safe to say that all these aircraft have roughly the same cost to the taxpayer:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/12/f-35-alternatives-cost-just-as-much-if.html

F-35 alternatives cost just as much, if not more

As we already know, F-35 costs have remained the same, with only the lifespan calculation changing due to different standards.  The cost, as confirmed yesterday, is roughly $88 million per F-35.

But let's say we did choose an alternative to the F-35 - what would it cost?  The NDP and media have suggested the government should look at the American F-18 Super Hornet or Europe's Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, or Dassault Rafale. So what would they cost?

F-35: $88 million
F-18 Super Hornet: $88 million
Saab Gripen: $100 million+
Eurofighter Typhoon: $100 million+
Dassault Rafale: $100 million+

Well, so much for those options.  Amusingly, if the NDP supports the most cost-effective plane, they're back to supporting the F-35.  What is their next line of attack after even their European favourites turn out to be more expensive than the F-35?

 

[Haletown]

This blogger comes up with a price list of the various fighter aircraft that can be considered. Given the various ways pricing can be "adjusted", it is safe to say that all these aircraft have roughly the same cost to the taxpayer:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/12/f-35-alternatives-cost-just-as-much-if.html

True indeed.  But they all provide less capability and that is something the Life Cycle Costing folks can't dicker with.

One of the best deceptions mouthed over and over is that the Rafale and Typhoon are 4.5 Gen aircraft and offer almost as much stealth capability as the JSF.  Which is true.

Except it is true only when they are not armed or carrying the external extra fuel they need to fly actual, useful missions.