Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

[steve2267]

From somewhere in the deep crevasses of me brains whisper... that previous Super Duper discussions had concluded that Super Duper prices, such as quoted by one weasley personality, did not include GFE such as:

1. GE F414 motors
2. AESA 'dars

Leaving out such minor details could very well explain the difference between a weasle and a spaz...

[spazsinbad]

Crevasse be damned - I need glacier-like certainty - yes these discussions about 'price' need details & official sources.

[optimist]

There are a dozen prices. All of them are correct, depending on what's included and the base year BY 2000 dollar or then year TY $ value. Best of luck guys.

The SAR has the aussie Supers for US$103,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 12_sar.pdf
The RAAF has them at us$6b or US$250 ea
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/meet- ... -ddo5.html

[weasel1962]

From somewhere in the deep crevasses of me brains whisper... that previous Super Duper discussions had concluded that Super Duper prices, such as quoted by one weasley personality, did not include GFE such as:

1. GE F414 motors
2. AESA 'dars

On pg 83 of the link I posted, there is actually a breakdown of how the flyaway unit cost of the Super Duper is calculated.

For FY 19
Airframe/CFE = $40,465,876
CFE electronics = $11,058,295 (includes AESA)
GFE electronics = $3,327.958
Engines = $8,805,036 (only 1 engine cost shown in link so I've multiplied by 2 here)
Armament = $403,381
Other GFE = $1,297,584
Recurring flyaway costs = $1,030,483
Total = $66,388,613

CFE being contractor furnished equipment and GFE being Government furnished equipment.

I suspect they use total cost (includes development & support costs, the kitchen sink and associated cup holders) which is also stated in the link for accident reports. That's how cheap those hornets are.

The price for FMS is higher for a few reasons. 1. There's a volume discount for the US. 2. US Govt also earns a margin for FMS. Hence arms sales are very encouraged. 3. FMS sales include significant training, support and development costs. 4. FMS sales may also include significant munitions.

[ricnunes]

I'm not so sure if bean counting is the primary KPI. The super-duper hornet costs the navy ~$67m flyaway cost a piece. Whilst we know the F-35A is worth the $10m top up, we know Trudeau doesn't.

Even if those values were to be an apples-to-apples comparison -> ~$67m for the Super Hornet and $80m for the F-35 for the exact same conditions, you still have to consider:

1- The Super Hornet if purchased by Canada would be a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) and as such it would be subjected to export taxes. So this by itself means that the price that Canada would buy per each Super Hornet would in the best case scenario be ~$67m + TAX.
While with the F-35 this won't happen since Canada is a member of the JSF program and one of the offsets of being a JSF partner nation is that a F-35 purchase won't be considered as a FMS and as such won't be subjected to any FMS Taxes. So if the F-35A price is $80m then this is what Canada will pay for it.

2- Secondly, the Canadian competition total score is down to 60% in capability, 20% in price/cost and 20% in offsets. If for some reason the Super Hornet wins in the price/cost and offset categories it would only win in 40% of the entire score while the F-35 would definitely win in 60% of the overall score.

3- Moreover, if the Super Hornet is to win the 20% Offset category then it must provide the possibility to either many of the Super Hornet parts being manufactured in Canada or even to assemble the aircraft itself in Canada as well. And what would be the direct result of this? The Price/Cost would "skyrocket" and go upwards which means that the Super Hornet could/would likely lose in the Price/Cost category compared to the F-35A (which by its turn would mean that the F-35 would win in 80% of the overall score!).

4- While it's hard to assess, the Australian purchase (the only Super Hornet FMS customer) shows that the Super Hornet isn't as cheap as it looks at first glance.
And IMO a much fair comparison to what Canada would/could pay for a Super Hornet would be to look at Australia and not at the US Navy (for the reasons mentioned above).

5- Again, don't forget about the Boeing/Bombardier issue!

[weasel1962]

Even if those values were to be an apples-to-apples comparison -> ~$67m for the Super Hornet and $80m for the F-35 for the exact same conditions,

That's why I was very careful to use "navy" which in this case refers to the US navy to quote the $67m cost in comparison to the US F-35 flyaway cost which steve has indirectly hinted does not include engine costs. The Canadian navy fighter aviation being non-existent.

FMS is less relevant both Boeing and LM offerings would suffer from FMS mark-ups.

Don't know exactly what the Canadian comp KPIs entail so I'd take your word for it. The technical margin (i.e. the 60%) between an F-35 and an F-18 can still be manipulated e.g. both have aesa = same score. F-18 has 2 engines = better than one engine. etc. F-35 has stealth, F-18 doesn't = overall draw. It really depends on how the comp is structured and marked. Those in procurement or tenders know its never that simple. That's also why some manufacturers pull out of tenders after seeing tender specs.

[hornetfinn]

In the Danish evaluation it was stated that F-35A would have cost them about $82m to acquire per aircraft and F/A-18F about $120m. SH was said to have lower sustainment costs which brougth the overall cost to about the same. Not sure if those costs included things like targeting pods, EFTs etc for the SH (and EF Typhoon).

I think there is not that big price difference between the two when all costs are included. However there is pretty big gap in capabilties especially going forward a decade or two.

[spazsinbad]

For a few years now F-35A unit cost quoted has always included the engine - a new paradigm it seems - for simplification.

Producing, Operating and Supporting a 5th Generation Fighter
LM PR

"...For the eleventh consecutive year, the cost of an F-35A was lowered. The F-35A unit price including aircraft, engine and fee, is $89.2 million....

...LRIP 11 Aircraft Costs (including jet, engine and fee) are:
• 102 F-35As CTOL - $89.2 million (5.4% reduction from Lot 10)
• 25 F-35Bs STOVL - $115.5 million (5.7% reduction from Lot 10)
• 14 F-35Cs CV - $107.7 million (11.1% reduction from Lot 10)..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/about/cost

[ricnunes]

That's why I was very careful to use "navy" which in this case refers to the US navy to quote the $67m cost in comparison to the US F-35 flyaway cost which steve has indirectly hinted does not include engine costs. The Canadian navy fighter aviation being non-existent.

Being Navy or Air Force or USMC isn't the matter here but instead being American is since when exported the US combat aircraft will be subjected to extra taxes/fees while the F-35 when purchased by ANY JSF partner nation (in which Canada is included) will not!

FMS is less relevant both Boeing and LM offerings would suffer from FMS mark-ups.

I'm not sure what you mean with "FMS mark-ups". But if that means that the F-35 (LM offering) is also subjected to the same/similar taxes/fees as the Super Hornet then you're wrong! Any F-35 purchased by any JSF partner nation which includes United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey (the later being expelled as a JSF partner nation) won't be subjected to any export taxes/fees, period! That's one of the offsets/advantages of being a JSF partner nation.

Don't know exactly what the Canadian comp KPIs entail so I'd take your word for it. The technical margin (i.e. the 60%) between an F-35 and an F-18 can still be manipulated e.g. both have aesa = same score. F-18 has 2 engines = better than one engine. etc. F-35 has stealth, F-18 doesn't = overall draw. It really depends on how the comp is structured and marked. Those in procurement or tenders know its never that simple. That's also why some manufacturers pull out of tenders after seeing tender specs.

It's funny that you minimize the F-35 advantages over the Super Hornet going to the point of claiming that in Stealth both could have a draw in this category. One of the requirements for the new Canadian fighter aircraft is to operate in multi-national missions abroad as such I cannot conceive how in such category a draw would be considered.
And how about RANGE? Which is extremely important to Canada. Here the F-35 wins hands down.
And what about EW which is a capability that Canada has been looking after? Win hands down to the F-35 too. Of course you could counter-argue with the Growler but I very much doubt that it will be offered to Canada or that Canada would ever consider it. Moreover a Growler is quite more expensive than a -E/F Super Hornet so this means that any cost advantage that the Super Hornet might have (which apparently it doesn't - look at Hornetfinn's post) would "go out of the window".

It's also funny/interesting that you minimize the Boeing/Bombardier issue. I'm sure that Trudeau and the Liberals wouldn't want to lose even more votes in Quebec than what they already did this week.

[weasel1962]

Being Navy or Air Force or USMC isn't the matter here.....It's funny that you minimize the F-35 advantages over the Super Hornet going to the point of claiming that in Stealth both could have a draw in this category.

You need to re-read the context of the response rather than assume which we know makes an *ss out of ....

It is not me minimizing the F-35 advantages. We here know and recognize the F-35 advantages (not so sure about the Northern neighbors who speak French). I'm just illustrating how a person drawing up a tender spec can write the rules on how each plane is assessed to eliminate the advantages. If that person is intent on selecting a Boeing, guess what happens to the other "inconvenient truths".

Noted on the lack of FMS margin for partner nations so that's a plus point. Clearly in return, the US government could impose a margin equivalent to the cost difference on Boeing (but unlikely to happen).

[spazsinbad]

Why Googlin' no longer finds USN Super Hornet Accident Reports: <sigh> Perhaps a PDF has been made in the past?

The U.S. Navy Is Hiding Aviation Accident Data https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ed-access/ Perhaps the info is still somewhere on F-16.net?

[ricnunes]

It is not me minimizing the F-35 advantages. We here know and recognize the F-35 advantages (not so sure about the Northern neighbors who speak French). I'm just illustrating how a person drawing up a tender spec can write the rules on how each plane is assessed to eliminate the advantages. If that person is intent on selecting a Boeing, guess what happens to the other "inconvenient truths".

Ok, I now understand where are you trying getting at.
However after Boeing did what I did regarding the Bombardier, I doubt that it (Boeing) will get any sympathies with the Liberals (the government at the time and still are), the Bloc Quebecois (since Bombardier is one of the biggest Quebec companies) or even with the NDP.
The only political party that I could see overlooking the Boeing/Bombardier issue of the recent past would be the Conservatives, but then again the Conservatives seem to favor the F-35.

Resuming, I would say that here's no "need" or will to change (actually to "twist") the "performance" requirements to favor the Super Hornet.

Noted on the lack of FMS margin for partner nations so that's a plus point. Clearly in return, the US government could impose a margin equivalent to the cost difference on Boeing (but unlikely to happen).

The only situation where I can imagine the US government to "circumvent" the FMS/taxes issue on the Super Hornet would be if the US Government decided to provide some sort of a package of military assistance to Canada (which could be in the form of roughly the same/similar value of the FMS taxes) in a similar way as it happens with Israel for example. But I don't see this happening regarding Canada even because the F-35 (the main competitor) is also a US aircraft.
So it would be senseless (actually a US national scandal!) if the US Government provided help to sell their aircraft to Canada but not provide the same sort of help to LM to sell their aircraft also to Canada.

[XanderCrews]

I'm not so sure if bean counting is the primary KPI. The super-duper hornet costs the navy ~$67m flyaway cost a piece. Whilst we know the F-35A is worth the $10m top up, we know Trudeau doesn't.

From his perspective, the not-so super-duper hornets in service have been able to fulfil all requirements to date. The super-duper hornet is already a step up. Worse is that the super-duper hornet is still being bought by his bigger neighbor and will be in their service for the next few decades. Worst is that because the F-35 is another decades long program, he can argue Canada is still in the F-35 program (as a super-duper hornet replacement) and try to keep his benefits.

Canada already touched the hot stove with their Interim BS. That bridge might actually be burned even worse than LM. according to all the more stupid Canadians on the internet, that was a personal vendetta against Trudeau which I believe is:

A. untrue to the point of laughable absurdity
B. If it was True and the PM hasn't changed, neither has the price


as a quick aside this government has managed to alienate every single potential CF-18 replacement vendor.

Lockheed is actually now the MOST politically tenable for Trudeau which is a 180 degreee difference from his retarded campaign promises not so long ago.

Even if those values were to be an apples-to-apples comparison -> ~$67m for the Super Hornet and $80m for the F-35 for the exact same conditions,

FMS is less relevant both Boeing and LM offerings would suffer from FMS mark-ups.

F-35 would not be FMS for Canada as they are partners.


I've said it before in this thread, and I explained it deeply in previous posts in fact. A VERY few people in the know who actually looked into it, and didn't use the Gullible Canadian media as a reference were able to do the math using all the additional fees and costings, along with the RAAF references, and later Denmark competition to effectively prove that the Super Hornet for Canada would cost significantly more than F-35A. WE were later proven right by Trudeau himself, (thanks bro)

Weasel you are going over a horse that was already demonstrably turned into glue. Thanks to the interim fiasco we know exactly what Super Hornet would Cost Canada. And it was considered a disaster so great not even Trudeau could bring himself to pull the trigger despite all the scamming he and Boeing had previously done together.

the US Navy numbers are 100 percent irrelevant to Canada or should I say %600

Here is my post on it:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=423711&hilit=65+million#p423711

[spazsinbad]

Some more on the price gouging scenario - sadly no source/reference for the quote except this website is reputable.:

19 Sep 2018 "...Lockheed Martin executives insist that by the time the RAAF pays for the bulk of its jets, the ‘fly-away’ cost will be below US$80million per plane. By comparison, the latest Super Hornet advanced fourth-generation jets cost US$78 million each...." https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-m ... e-fighter/

[ricnunes]

The saga within the Canadian media "to find" an alternative to the F-35, goes on and on and on (like the Duracell rabbit commercial of old times):
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... -by-canada

Boeing pitches guarantee of billions of dollars of work for Canadian firms if its Super Hornet is picked by Canada

U.S. aerospace giant Boeing is pitching its guarantee of billions of dollars of work for Canadian companies as well as keeping aircraft maintenance in country as it tries to convince the Liberal government to select a new version of the Super Hornet fighter jet.

Boeing is hoping that new technology on the Super Hornet and its commitment to place as much as $30 billion of work with Canadian firms will result in it winning the competition to build 88 jets.

The move comes as the NDP and aerospace unions are becoming more vocal about the need for Canada’s fighter jet replacement project to pay major dividends for the economy.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said last week he would be pushing that issue when Parliament returns and he hopes to have a discussion with the Liberal’s new defence minister about how Canadian jobs can be created and sustained by the program.

(more at the source)