F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[aesop081]

Generally speaking, aircraft fleets are allocated a specific number of hours that can be flown in one year by that entire fleet. The management of those hours between specific tail numbers and the type of flying done does not change the YFR allocated to a specific fleet of aircraft.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Generally speaking, aircraft fleets are allocated a specific number of hours that can be flown in one year by that entire fleet. The management of those hours between specific tail numbers and the type of flying done does not change the YFR allocated to a specific fleet of aircraft.

Precisely.  It may be that, do to maintenance reasons, a particular tail number will fly no hours in a given year, while next aircraft over may fly hundreds of hours.

Very early in the acquisition of an aircraft fleet, we try to establish a "stagger" in airframe hours, so that they all don't hit major maintenance milestones at the same time.  This means certain aircaft will get "held" and others will be "pushed".

None of this changes the global allocation of fleet hours in a given year, as noted above.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Generally speaking, aircraft fleets are allocated a specific number of hours that can be flown in one year by that entire fleet. The management of those hours between specific tail numbers and the type of flying done does not change the YFR allocated to a specific fleet of aircraft.

Appreciate the clarification.

 

[Sub_Guy]

This guy has a slightly different take on the whole thing. 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06/matthew-fisher-f-35s-may-cost-more-than-other-fighters-but-well-probably-still-need-them/

 

[PuckChaser]

This guy has a slightly different take on the whole thing. 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06/matthew-fisher-f-35s-may-cost-more-than-other-fighters-but-well-probably-still-need-them/

His take is sane, rational thought. Much different than the bleating of the opposition and F-35 haters.

 

[aesop081]

This guy has a slightly different take on the whole thing. 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06/matthew-fisher-f-35s-may-cost-more-than-other-fighters-but-well-probably-still-need-them/

A few things i fault this piece for are this :

The Japanese, who are not partners, did hold a competition and concluded the JSF was better than Boeing’s Super Hornet and the Eurofighter consortium’s Typhoon.

The Japanese concluded that the JSF was better than SH and Typhoon, for their needs. There is an important distinction there.

Sweden’s Grippen, for example, had two very public and embarrassing prototype crashes.

The same logic the author, and many other people, apply to explain dismiss the F-35's woes apply here. There were teething problems. The JAS-39 now serves with Sweeden, Hungary, South Africa, The Checz republic and has just been selected by the Swiss air force.

France’s Rafale was long delayed, over budget, and it has little success in export sales

So ? The F-35 is long delayed and well over budget as well. Now that India has chosen the Raffale for a major deal, it has its first foreign sale.

Eurofighter’s Typhoon has experienced enormous problems, delays and cost overruns and has failed to attract buyers outside its builders’ group

False. Both Austria and Saudi Arabia are Typhoon operators and neither are part of the builder nations group.

 

[McG]

MacKay aware of F-35s' extra $10B cost
CBC News
Canadian Press
08 Apr 2012

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he was aware two years ago that it would cost closer to $25 billion to buy a new fleet of F-35 stealth fighter jets.

That's about $10 billion more than the nearly $15 billion the government has maintained would be the price of the 65 radar-evading aircraft.

MacKay was asked on CTV's Question Period whether he was aware of the higher internal number. He said the higher number takes into account the ongoing cost of pilots' salaries and other costs associated with operating the current fleet of CF-18 jet fighters.

"Yes, and it was explained to me just that way, that the additional $10 billion was money that you could describe as sunk costs, that is what we're paying our personnel, and the fuel that is currently being expended in CF-18s, jet fuel, maintenance costs, what we are currently spending. So not part of a new acquisition," MacKay said.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson issued a scathing report this past week that slammed the military for keeping Parliament in the dark on the true cost of the procurement. He pegged the eventual cost of the project at $25 billion.

Ferguson also suggested to reporters that cabinet ministers would have known the true cost of buying the new planes was much higher than the numbers they were using publicly.

The Conservative government has faced heated attacks from the opposition, including calls for ministerial resignations.

MacKay dismissed a suggestion that he should resign over the matter.

"This money has not been spent. No money is missing," he said.

Click here for more

 

[WingsofFury]

CTV's Question Period devoted an entire show to the F-35, and it can be found here.

I wish that they would spend as much time explaining the nuances of the F-35 and compare them to what the "competition" aircarft would offer.  I'd also like to see a debate between someone involved in the F-35 office and someone in opposition to the purchase, like a Sweetman, as to why the F-35 is the best platform available.

There are still too many points being incorrectly reported by the MSM, which you'll find in the CTV report above, that are distorting what is true fact about the program itself.

Cheers.

 

[Journeyman]

CBC News
Canadian Press

Auditor General Michael Ferguson issued a scathing report this past week that slammed the military.....

I wonder if they actually read the report; I didn't get "scathing" or "slamming" from it. I'm also assuming that the Opposition didn't put too much effort into the document either, since they seem to just be using the media's shrill buzzwords in Parliament.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's fair comment on MacKay's part.

As most folks here know.

Yet another way to slice this salami is to look at the cost of replacing the existing Air Combat Capability with a new Air Combat Capability. 

It costs money in people and fuel and tires to provide the existing capability and the replacement capability.  Those costs are inherent in providing the capability.  Arguably, given that there will be fewer flying seats (65 vs 80 to 138 A/C with only single seat craft versus some duals) then manning costs should be relatively lower.

Equally it costs money to maintain and upgrade the existing and replacement capability.  Those costs are equally inherent in providing the capability.

The capital cost is the only "new money" involved in supplying the capability.

Arguably the replacement cost is the solely the capital acquisition cost for new aircraft and infrastructure plus the deltas for Personnel, Operations and Maintenance - not the whole cost but simply the difference in costs when the new POM budget is compared to current POM budget.

As the POM budget is a continuing cost, variable according to the service life of the aircraft, and as the infrastructure which houses the aircraft has to be renewed on its own schedule regardless if the facilities they shelter change, then I would argue that the real "replacement cost" is strictly the 6 BCAD allocated for the aircraft plus the purchase of dedicated trainers and any new weapons that must be purchased because the old weapons won't work with the new system.

The service life of the F-35, stretched out to 2052, could be 36 years.  Keeping the CF-18 flying for the next 36 years, as a theoretical construct, would require spending at an annual rate at least equivalent to that of the F-35.

Keeping the CBC going for 20 years at today's burn rate will cost us 20x 1.1 BCAD or 22 BCAD
For 25 years it will cost us 27.5 BCAD
For 36 years it will cost us 39.6 BCAD
Until 2052 it wll cost us 44 BCAD.

Keeping the public health financing in Canada going for 20 years at 2011s burn rate will cost us 20x 140 BCAD or 2800 BCAD
For 25 years it will cost us 3500 BCAD
For 36 years it will cost us 5040 BCAD
Until 2052 it will cost us 5600 BCAD

Exclusive of the Purchase Price of 6 to 9 BCAD the cost of supplying the Air Combat Capability for 20 years at the OAGs burn rate will cost us 20x 807* MCAD or 16.1 BCAD
For 25 years is will cost 20 BCAD
For 36 years it will cost 29 BCAD
Until 2052 it will cost 32 BCAD.

These costs are independent of the aircraft chosen except to the extent that buying more aircraft will increase costs and maintaining older aircraft will increase costs.

The amortized cost of the 9 BCAD in capital costs, exclusive of financing, over the full 36 year life cycle, is 250 MCAD per year or, assuming a 65 aircraft buy, 3.8 MCAD per aircraft per year.

*807 = OAGs 16,140 MCAD in POM costs divided by OAG's 20 year timeline.

No accountant me but I get to argue with them on a regular basis.

 

[Kirkhill]

As to CTV.....Stuff 'em.  :bunny:

 

[Haletown]

So I was with the in laws for Easter weekend . . .  38 people for dinner and not one knew about the F-35 controversy.

Good cross section of ordinary Canadians and just not on their radar screen.

Nothing scientific here, just anecdotal, but it seems the F 35 controversy exists in the fevered minds of the national press corps who still desperately seek a killer scandal with which to slay their mortal enemy.

They keep swinging and missing and PM Harper continues to ignore them and their delusions of self importance.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

CTV's Question Period devoted an entire show to the F-35, and it can be found here.

I wish that they would spend as much time explaining the nuances of the F-35 and compare them to what the "competition" aircarft would offer.  I'd also like to see a debate between someone involved in the F-35 office and someone in opposition to the purchase, like a Sweetman, as to why the F-35 is the best platform available.

There are still too many points being incorrectly reported by the MSM, which you'll find in the CTV report above, that are distorting what is true fact about the program itself.

Cheers.

Well we don't have a Sweetman, but we do have respected military journalist Scott Taylor.   Enjoy.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Does anyone know who will be in the new F-35 secretariat?

 

[2010newbie]

Haletown??  ;D

 

[Haletown]

Haletown??  ;D

They asked, they begged, alas I had to turn them down because nothing can be allowed to interfere with BBQ season . . . .  ;D

 

[observor 69]

Does anyone know who will be in the new F-35 secretariat?

Would that be the Secretariat looking at all potential replacement aircraft? 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Would that be the Secretariat looking at all potential replacement aircraft?

Well, yes. I think they're still called the F-35 Secretariat though.

 

[cupper]

They asked, they begged, alas I had to turn them down because nothing can be allowed to interfere with BBQ season . . . .  ;D

A man with his priorities straight. I salute you sir!

 

[Haletown]

A game I would love to have in the Man Cave.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/cnbc/47022008/#47022008