Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

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

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 21:07

Well it was a bit worse than that. Basically they suggest that DND manipulated process and did not undertake a proper competition around 2009~2010. Its not the worst thing to say, DND does this frequently but with different tactics (like the C-130J).

Of course this is being portrayed as negligence, when the AG report suggests that this was a function of the involvement in the development program.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 23:28

johnwill wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D


Well, maybe your coin holder, as the US F-35 will have a per capita flyaway cost of around 25 cents. :shock:

That puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 982
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 23:58

Well at least now I understand why Canada is doing away with the penny.

Eh.

:D
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 650
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 00:08

hb_pencil wrote:


Hb .. any idea what figure has been used?
$49.9 million in 2001 was $60.29 million in 2009, not $84.9 million.


A. 2001-2009
$49.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $60.29 million in 2009

Raise: $10.39 million


B. 2001-2009
$84.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $102.58 million in 2009

Raise: $17.68 million


Quote: Exhibit 2.2—Estimates for full production period of unit recurring flyaway costs increased from 2001 to 2009
The line graph shows the increase in flyaway costs from 2001 to 2009.
In October 2001, the flyaway costs were 49.9 million United States (US) dollars. The costs steadily increased to 84.9 million US dollars in December 2009.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... 36466.html

Calculator:
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
Offline

cywolf32

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 618
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 12:04
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 01:40

Enough drama already. Buy it or move on.
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 04:30

cywolf32 wrote:Enough drama already. Buy it or move on.


Drama sells ad space. It helps position politicians. The dull but hot anchorperson gets a job until the wrinkles set in. This one will persist until Bessy shrivels to a raisin from all the milking that inevitably will occur.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 08:26

m wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:


Hb .. any idea what figure has been used?
$49.9 million in 2001 was $60.29 million in 2009, not $84.9 million.


A. 2001-2009
$49.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $60.29 million in 2009

Raise: $10.39 million


B. 2001-2009
$84.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $102.58 million in 2009

Raise: $17.68 million


Quote: Exhibit 2.2—Estimates for full production period of unit recurring flyaway costs increased from 2001 to 2009
The line graph shows the increase in flyaway costs from 2001 to 2009.
In October 2001, the flyaway costs were 49.9 million United States (US) dollars. The costs steadily increased to 84.9 million US dollars in December 2009.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... 36466.html

Calculator:
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm



I don't... partly because its not a clear what they are talking about (though its not a Canadian figure but from the US project office). It might be the estimate of the REC of an F-35 in a the year the fighter is purchased... but then again we don't know what year they are using. What is clear is that it does not use base year, so inflationary increases are included, whether it be 2001 to 2009, or 2016 to 2020 (or whatever it was).

By the way M, I sent you a pm a few days ago.
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post05 Apr 2012, 11:58

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... eport.html


Never ending sensational revelations..Here is another one...
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post05 Apr 2012, 14:17

duplex . . . The Star is Canada's leading military hating newspaper, the house organ of the soft socialists and they hate the current government.

Just for context . . .
Offline

awsome

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post09 Apr 2012, 04:01

Canada should buy all remaining F-14D aircraft currently stored at AMARG as an interim replacement for its legacy Hornets. Intergrate AMRAAM and upgrade the engines and radar. This aircraft has the speed and range to patrol the great expances of the north and would be a good fit for shooting down cruise missiles.
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post09 Apr 2012, 05:36

awsome wrote:Canada should buy all remaining F-14D aircraft currently stored at AMARG as an interim replacement for its legacy Hornets. Intergrate AMRAAM and upgrade the engines and radar. This aircraft has the speed and range to patrol the great expances of the north and would be a good fit for shooting down cruise missiles.


The only reason the USN could keep those craft running fairly well was a deeply integrated and committed maintenance effort. Even with that dedication the mean time between failure was pretty high compared to their replacement 4+Gen aircraft. Now that a few years have passed and that expertise has been fading away you are looking at a serious restart for a 70s era design. You would be looking at a long list of avionics ground up investment, not only on the aircraft itself but for test, depot and supply chain support. Yet another reason for Canada to hate us but it would provide military haters a field day of new things to feed their press releases with.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post09 Apr 2012, 06:52

'ground up unvestment'? Yep. Shredded more likely: "In July 2007, the remaining American F-14s were shredded to ensure that any parts could not be acquired."

VIDEO: F-14 Tomcat Shredder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W7pph9KhYY
"Uploaded by intrudera6 on Dec 31, 2007
Sad sight of F-14s being cut up...."
________________________________

U.S. to shred F-14s, deny Iran any parts By Sharon Theimer Associated Press July 3 2007

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6801 ... parts.html

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to destroy its dozens of retired F-14 fighter jets to deny Iran a source for desperately needed spare parts, a dramatic move though one that national security experts say is of more symbolic than practical value.

Within a day, a $38 million fighter jet that once soared as a showpiece of U.S. airpower can be reduced to shreds of twisted metal at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., the military's aircraft cemetery. Last month, a contractor finished the first phase of the effort, shredding roughly two dozen....

...At last count, the military's boneyard in Arizona held 165 Tomcats, believed to be the only ones left out of 633 produced for the Navy. The others were scavenged for parts to keep others flying, went to museums or crashed, said a spokeswoman for the air base, Teresa Vanden-Heuvel.

The Navy plans to destroy all the remaining jets, Lt. Bashon Mann said.

A St. Louis-based company, TRI-Rinse, won a three-year, $3.7 million contract to render surplus equipment useless for military purposes. The work includes the recent demolition of 23 Tomcats in Arizona, accounting for about $900,000 of the contract. The military is considering using the same process on its other F-14s.

The company has developed portable shredding machinery so the Pentagon can have sensitive items destroyed on a base instead of shipping them long distances to be shredded...."
Attachments
ShreddingTomcatF-14.jpg
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post09 Apr 2012, 16:05

Can the Iranian Tomcats still fly ??
Offline

awsome

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post09 Apr 2012, 17:03

I know we are way of topic now... but yes the Iranian Tomcats still fly. I had read recently that AMARG still had about 50 F-14D Tomcats left, but they may have been destroyed by now. I was not really that serious, just wishful thinking.
Offline

jslugman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 01:05
  • Location: Tucson, AZ

Unread post25 Apr 2012, 05:38

I did an overflight of AMARG in June 2011 and there were 8 F-14s in section 22/24. I didn't see any in the "museum hold" area section 20.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests