Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post27 Jan 2013, 01:33

popcorn wrote:
neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


Good,that you are not disputing the A$6.6B program cost,which is what I am focusing on and which F-35 critics like to highlight whenever they want to put the program,down. Total program cost divided by 24 units.. what's misleading about that? Just goes to show how easy it is to sensationalize the cost of any program without providing context to suit any agenda one wishes. Anyway, it got the reaction I was expecting.
Growler obviously costs more than a F, I wasn't claiming otherwise, was I? Simple division.

At risk of being a smart a**, IMO initial costs (acquisition, initial spares, initial training) isn't the driving factor between F/A-18F and the F-35. Schedule and availability is the main factors towards acquiring F/A-18Fs. I could understand why the RAAF might prefer to buy their F-35s in a later lot to save on the unit cost, but that doesn't increase the related program support costs. They'll still need the parts, the training facilities, and all that.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1013
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post27 Jan 2013, 15:06

neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


The original budget was AUD$6.6b for the full operational capability, upgrades and in-service support, infrastructure, training assets and so on for 13 years of operations at a set flying rate.

Our subsequent "brilliant" Defence Ministers have managed to "find" $300m in "savings" from this budget outlay however (in the usual manner, ie: reduced flying hours and weapons stocks).

The most accurate figure is therefore AUD$6.3b...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19234
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2013, 19:50

Thanks 'Conan' whilst any Growler conversions/addons equipment costs can be added to this new total of 6.3 billion Oz dorrar.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post28 Jan 2013, 01:41

llc wrote: With regards to the state of the CF-18 in the 2018 - 2020 timeframe and your recommendation that the RCAF limit expeditionary deployments, or minimize training or flying, I offer the following: The CF-18 will be severely limited in capability unless it is updated, not deploying will not be a choice, it'll be a necessity. The fighter force will not be able to further reduce training over a two year period, this would dramatically strain a force which is struggling to maintain capability, proficiency and experience. I don't see any easy options.


Sorry, I should clarify this statement. The problem with the CF-18 isn't its airframe life or its capability. Basically its a very good F/A-18C equivalent, and that should be sufficient military capability to carry out most operations for at least the next decade. Because of the structural maintenance process, we can fly the CF-18's life for quite some time after 2020, both in terms of its useful military capability and its actual ability to fly. That is the view of the air staff based on their operational analysis.

The problem is with crews. We don't have a large reserve of maitnenence or aircrews and when we switch over there will be a significant issue with training individuals to operate the new aircraft. That's going to be an issue regardless of what fighter we chose.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1013
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post28 Jan 2013, 01:48

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'Conan' whilst any Growler conversions/addons equipment costs can be added to this new total of 6.3 billion Oz dorrar.


Indeed, the pre-conversion wiring was $30m and a long lead item purchase was $52m or so, whether those figures are included in the $1.5b DSCA announcement or not is the question...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19234
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Feb 2013, 09:17

double post - this board can be the pits sometimes. If unusual characters such as long or short hyphens from another character map are inserted then the board has a fit of Error Messages and funnyhaha hyphens. Eventually it seems to catch up with itself but only after I have posted the message twice. Whatever. BahHumBug.
Last edited by spazsinbad on 13 Feb 2013, 09:29, edited 2 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19234
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Feb 2013, 09:23

The first in a series is on page 34 of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... oka#242006 here is another part:

Aerial Refueling, Northern Defence and the F-35 By Richard Shimooka 06 Feb 2013

http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/en/blog/entry/i ... d-the-f-35

"...Transitioning towards the boom system will increase the Canadian Forces’ flexibility. It would allow Canada to refuel all its aircraft, including the CC-177 transport, which is currently not possible with the Polaris. Moreover booms would enhance interoperability with allies, particularly the United States. The challenges of utilizing an incompatible system can be witnessed in the RCAF’s day-to-day operations. To support Canadian CF-18s on a NORAD mission, USAF KC-135s must be reequipped with a drogue basket and crewed with qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available, because only a few crews are capable of undertaking probe and drogue refueling compared to the nominal boom system. This can limit the RCAF’s ability to respond to threats against Canadian and American sovereignty. Looking forward, boom systems will become the most commonly used system among our non-US allies, in large part due to foreign sales of the F-35. Standardizing our refueling system with them will facilitate our ability to operate in a joint fashion, and enhance Canada’s security both at home and abroad."

Only concluding paragraph excerpt above. Many details about CanUk refuelling I had not seen before in this post. Go read it.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests