F-35 isn't dead yet, but on life-support - Polidicks

[img]http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2012/09/07/li-jet-8772028.jpg[/img] [quote=CBC NEWS]The federal government says it won't make a final decision on which fighter jet to buy until it completes every step of the complex process it laid out last spring after a blistering report from the auditor general about the escalating costs attached to the F-35. [b]Those costs have now been set at $45.8 billion over the jets' full 42-year life cycle, in an independent audit released Wednesday.[/b] But officials didn't say Wednesday how long its evaluation process will take or whether the aging CF-18 Hornet jets in service now will hold up if there is a significant delay in finding replacements. The original delivery date for the F-35s was supposed to be between 2017 and 2023. Officials said Wednesday that National Defence is conducting a thorough examination of the current fleet, including any costs of upgrades that might be needed to extend their life. More details were given Wednesday about the evaluation of other options to replace the older planes. A panel of independent reviewers to oversee the process was announced. Members will include Keith Coulter, Philippe LaGasse of the University of Ottawa, public policy expert James Mitchell and Rod Monette, a former comptroller general of Canada. Officials also said that all fighter jets currently in production or scheduled to be in production will be considered to replace the CF-18s. That includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Boeing Super Hornet and others. One of the most anticipated reports was from accounting firm KPMG, which concludes that the total cost of owning and operating the F-35 jets would be $45.8 billion, including attrition costs, over a period of 42 years. This is a huge increase from the government's original estimate of about $16 billion over 20 years, but there is no doubt that the lengthening of the life cycle is a big contributor to the inflated cost. Process 'reset' with longer life cycle At a press conference following the release of the documents, Minister of Public Works Rona Ambrose said the government had agreed to "refine" its fighter jet acquisition process as recommended by the auditor general. Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that in 2010 he announced that the acquisition costs of the F-35 would be $9 billion. He stated that today's estimates were close to that figure, although he acknowledged that the $9 billion was spread over only 20 years, which, he said, was in line with Treasury Board guidelines. MacKay also admitted that operating costs were not taken into account when coming up with the $9-billion calculation. In the past few days the government has seized on that phrase, "life cycle," as a way to explain the inflated costs revealed by the KPMG report. Ambrose said that using the "full life cycle" of 42 years explains the difference in the costs. MacKay said the "reset" process underway now is because the auditor general suggested more due diligence be applied to the cost estimates. He did not directly answer questions about why the Defence Department did not use a longer life cycle than 20 years. The KPMG report notes that Norway, Australia and the Netherlands all use 30-year life cycles for their cost estimates, but KPMG recommended that a full life cycle be the measure, which also happens to be what the auditor general stipulated in his spring report on the fighter planes. At 42 years, beginning in 2010, that life cycle would mean the new planes wouldn't be mothballed until 2052. F-35 benefits to Canada set at $9.8B Another report released today found that, as has been reported, the industrial benefits that would flow from the F-35 program are estimated to be $9.8 billion. However, those opportunities will disappear if Canada drops out of the F-35 program. And if the F-35 is the chosen plane, there are no guarantees that Canadian industry will win all of the potential contracts. [b]Documents released Wednesday also revealed that the sticker price for each F-35 jet, based on information from the Joint Strike Fighter Program office, is now $92 million. This is a jump from the government's original promise of $75 million per plane.[/b] Officials said that the plan is still for 65 planes if the winning jet turns out to be the F-35, but that figure could change if another plane is chosen. Officials also said that even though Canada is evaluating all other options for aircraft, it still signed an F-35 memo of understanding in 2010. Costs have steadily risen In his report last spring, Auditor General Michael Ferguson concluded the F-35 program would cost as much as $25 billion over 20 years. But Ferguson also said that was too short a period of time to consider. As a result, the government extended the jets' life cycle to the more realistic 42 years. Wednesday, a Department of National Defence report assessed the new longer costs at about $44 billion. The independent auditor KPMG essentially certified those costs — and the methodology used to determine them — in its own report. It also tacked on another billion dollars in costs to account for aircraft losses over the years, setting the final cost for 65 aircraft, maintenance, operating costs and sustainment at $45.8 billon. The KPMG audit was generally muted in its criticism of the government's numbers. But one area where it had significant disagreement was on the size of the contingency fund built into the government's $9 billion cap for simple acquisition. Those costs include just the planes and the parts and equipment needed to fly them, along with a built-in contingency spread of several hundred million dollars. But KPMG worries the cost of the F-35 could climb far beyond the new $92 million figure. KPMG says that kind of increase would affect the number of planes the military could buy, bringing it down from 65 aircraft, to just 55. Of course, that discussion is hypothetical, as the government now says its now looking at buying other planes. It promises now to set aside the statement of operational requirements that the Defence Department wrote to justify its planned purchase of the F-35. The government said Wednesday that statement of requirements no longer has any effect, though officials say it could also still be resurrected. The government announced its decision to buy the F-35 fighter jets in July 2010, without following a competitive process, to replace Canada's fleet of aging CF-18 Hornets. The government stuck to its line that acquisition costs for the F-35s would be $9 billion for a 20-year lifespan, and it insisted that the sticker price for each individual plane would be $75 million. The government dismissed a report by Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, who calculated that the F-35s would in fact cost $30 billion. Page used a life cycle estimate of 30 years. But last April the government backed down when Ferguson issued a scathing report about the F-35 project. "There were significant weaknesses in the decision-making process used by National Defence in acquiring the F-35 to replace the CF-18," Ferguson wrote. The government created the National Fighter Jet Procurement Secretariat under Public Works in response, and touted a seven-point plan to put the process back on the rails.[/quote] [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/12/pol-f-35-kpmg-report-release.html]Sauce[/url] So... What about that $9 billion dollar price tag?

I still don't fully understand why the F-22 was cut in the first place.

F-22 wasn't cut. It just went through its full production run.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38808520]I still don't fully understand why the F-22 was cut in the first place.[/QUOTE] Probably something to do with the lack of a need for dedicated air superiority fighters.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38808520]I still don't fully understand why the F-22 was cut in the first place.[/QUOTE] Project costs, I believe.

They made like 200 of them. That's kinda all you need.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38808550]They made like 200 of them. That's kinda all you need.[/QUOTE] yeah, the f-22 is supposed to be the "high-end" fighter specifically for air-to-air combat - which means it's expensive and not very numerous on the other hand the f-35 is supposed to be the "low-end" one, with air-to-air capabilities but primarily for ground attack, and is also supposed to be smaller, and cheaper to manufacture, and there will be more of them made basically same deal as with the f-15 and f-16

Keep in mind this is specifically dealing with Canada's order, not the USA's.

But the F-35 costs more per unit than the F-22 :v: e: Not to mention the F-22 can be fitted with hardpoints giving it the same(?) air-to-ground capability as the F-35 at the cost of some of its stealth capabilities.

God canada lets just make the Avro Arrow already and be done with it.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38808678]But the F-35 costs more per unit than the F-22 :v:[/QUOTE] well, there is that wasn't the original plan though

Why cant they just say... Lets take this money, [url=http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/430423--watts-takes-shots-at-broadway-corridor-plans-in-vancouver]and spent it on making the City of Surrey happy.[/url] [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/article/1301260--auditor-general-says-presto-smart-card-cost-has-ballooned-to-700-million]and spent it on improving the TTC.[/url] and so forth.

[quote]Those costs have now been set at $45.8 billion over the jets' full 42-year life cycle, in an independent audit released Wednesday.[/quote] I read this and went "Holy shit, that's great news! I thought it was a trillion something!" Then I kept reading and realized Canada.

[QUOTE=SteeleCratos;38808717]God canada lets just make the Avro Arrow already and be done with it.[/QUOTE] I really hope you're using the name "Avro Arrow" in a symbolic or metaphoric sense.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38808678]But the F-35 costs more per unit than the F-22 :v: e: Not to mention the F-22 can be fitted with hardpoints giving it the same(?) air-to-ground capability as the F-35 at the cost of some of its stealth capabilities.[/QUOTE] The problem with the F-35, was that they were kinda unrealistic, trying to have the same plane also be a harrier type one, not considering the fact that it's hard to adapt the plane to VTOL, that's one of the reasons the program is so fucking bloated and hung up. The standard cheap carrier version is fine though.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;38808590] on the other hand the f-35 is supposed to be the "low-end" one, with air-to-air capabilities [B]but primarily for ground attack[/B], and is also supposed to be smaller, and cheaper to manufacture, and there will be more of them made basically same deal as with the f-15 and f-16[/QUOTE] um no that's the A10 F35 is one of them fancy ~multirole~ fighters

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38808900]um no that's the A10 F35 is one of them fancy ~multirole~ fighters[/QUOTE] I think you read that wrong man. He was explaining multirole, it's basically planes with the ability to deep strike, with ground support from carrier being one of the main uses and has some capacity to fight other planes.

And let's be honest. We're rarely doing anything but Air to Ground now-a-days when it comes to attack.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38808823]I really hope you're using the name "Avro Arrow" in a symbolic or metaphoric sense.[/QUOTE] Who doesn't want a jet older than the Fishbed? They can also replace their C7s with Lee Enfields while they're at it

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38808900]um no that's the A10 F35 is one of them fancy ~multirole~ fighters[/QUOTE] No, the F-35 is primarily expected to be used against ground targets, but is capable of engaging other aircraft (so yes it is multirole but to say that it's not primarily meant for ground attack is wrong). Dogfights are pretty rare in modern warfighting. The A-10 is strictly ground-support and has no air to air capability. Anyone calling to resurrect the Avro Arrow is pretty ignorant. It'd be a gross misappropriation of government funds for the sake of nostalgia; while they are bad to the bone, they have next to no place in modern air combat. Relying on them in times of crisis would be a terrible mistake.

A-10 has very limited air-to-air capability in the form of AIM-9s and gun. I don't think it even has a lead-computing sight, though.

A-10 has air to air capability. It can shoot at planes at an airport.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38809021]A-10 has air to air capability. It can shoot at planes at an airport.[/QUOTE] So can I. I am a fighter jet wooooshh!

[QUOTE=Apache249;38809014]A-10 has very limited air-to-air capability in the form of AIM-9s and gun. I don't think it even has a lead-computing sight, though.[/QUOTE] It has air to air capability in the same sense that an elephant gun has anti-tank capability. Yes, you [I]can[/I] engage air targets, but it's not designed with that in mind. Besides the sluggishness of the A-10, the DU shells it uses pose a massive collateral damage threat if you attempt to engage a fighter aircraft with the GAU-8.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809058]It has air to air capability in the same sense that an elephant gun has anti-tank capability. Yes, you [I]can[/I] engage air targets, but it's not designed with that in mind. Besides the sluggishness of the A-10, the DU shells it uses pose a massive collateral damage threat if you attempt to engage a fighter aircraft with the GAU-8.[/QUOTE] Bro. You're talking about the US Military. When have we ever cared about collateral damage? [editline]12th December 2012[/editline] Our doctrines are literally, blow the shit out of everything, then have tanks and IFV's carrying infantry blow the shit out of everything else.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38809109]Bro. You're talking about the US Military. When have we ever cared about collateral damage? [editline]12th December 2012[/editline] Our doctrines are literally, blow the shit out of everything, then have tanks and IFV's carrying infantry blow the shit out of everything else.[/QUOTE] Then I'll put it in terms the US Military can understand: high collateral damage with a minigun means your bullets aren't hitting the target, making it an ineffective weapon. You're better off using an actual fighter aircraft or SAMs.

But when you shoot so fast, it doesn't matter about accuracy. you're gonna hit it eventually.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809058]It has air to air capability in the same sense that an elephant gun has anti-tank capability. Yes, you [I]can[/I] engage air targets, but it's not designed with that in mind. Besides the sluggishness of the A-10, the DU shells it uses pose a massive collateral damage threat if you attempt to engage a fighter aircraft with the GAU-8.[/QUOTE] I heard they only field the HE-I rounds in the gun anyway. [sub][sub][sub][citation needed][/sub][/sub][/sub] Also, A-10s have extreme maneuverability in the form of a very tight turning radius. [QUOTE]The A-10/OA-10 have excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and are highly accurate weapons-delivery platforms. The A-10 has half the turning radius of the Air Force's other primary CAS aircraft, the F-16.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Apache249;38809148]I heard they only field the HE-I rounds in the gun anyway. [sub][sub][sub][citation needed][/sub][/sub][/sub] Also, A-10s have extreme maneuverability in the form of a very tight turning radius. [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm[/url][/QUOTE] HE rounds will also have collateral damage concerns. As for their maneuverability, it's only because they're so slow and have such a large surface area on the wings. They are great ground attack aircraft, nothing else. [editline]13th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38809147]But when you shoot so fast, it doesn't matter about accuracy. you're gonna hit it eventually.[/QUOTE] Sure, at great expense in terms of ammunition and replacement parts for the minigun. The barrels wear out very quickly.

The A-10 is a fighter jet in the sense that it could bring one down if you managed to sneak up on one that is stalling and crash into it Why are we even talking about this