[Gunnair]

Quote:

MURRAY BREWSTER

OTTAWA— The Canadian Press


Another U.S. report suggests the F-35 stealth fighter could cost billions of dollars more to operate than previously thought.

An estimate by a Pentagon cost-analysis unit projects it will cost $915-billion to keep the U.S. fleet of 2,443 jets flying for 30 years.

The document, leaked to Bloomberg News in Washington, forecasts a lifetime maintenance bill of roughly $375-million per aircraft.

Alan Williams, a former senior Canadian defence official, says the costs would be comparable for the 65 planes the Conservative government intends to purchase, starting in 2017.

Using the Pentagon numbers, the 65 planes would cost more than $24-billion to maintain over 30 years, well above government estimates.

The cost-analysis group works directly for the U.S. Defence Secretary and challenges the numbers and assumptions of the Pentagon's project offices. It based its projection on the operating costs of the existing fleets of F-18s, F-16s and U.S. Marine Corps Harrier jump jets.

Much of the debate in Canada over the highly automated fighter-bombers has centred on the eye-popping purchase price, which could range between $75-million and $151-million per aircraft, depending upon who is doing the estimate.

But only passing attention has been paid to long-term maintenance and service, which the Conservatives have projected at no more than $7-billion over 20 years.

No one was available at National Defence on Monday to comment on the report.

In a report just before the Harper government was defeated, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page pegged service for the F-35 at $19.5-billion over 30 years – or roughly $301-million per plane.

Mr. Page incurred a furious response from the Conservatives in March for suggesting the overall program could cost taxpayers $29.3-billion, but if the new figures from the Pentagon hold, the price tag could go even higher.

“The Pentagon’s new forecast represents a significant increase even over what the U.S. expected,” said Mr. Williams, who is an outspoken critic of the program. “The simple fact is we just don’t know how much we’ll spend. It just lends more weight to the argument that we should wait.”

Repeated warnings about costs spurred the F-35 project office at the Pentagon to commit last week to a sweeping review of what it will take to maintain the aircraft over the long haul.

The study, ordered by project executive officer Vice-Admiral David Venlet, will look at the design of the aircraft to try and figure out what is driving the costs into the stratosphere.

“The service chiefs look at the estimates of the maintenance cost and it makes their knees go weak,” said Adm. Venlet, according to an April 22 transcript of his remarks. “There is an estimate. We know that is not the right number.”

A second, separate report prepared two years ago by the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command said long-term support could hit $443-billion, but that estimate was in 2002 dollars.

Adm. Venlet said even that is too high.

Mr. Williams said there is a lot of uncertainty in the numbers because the plane is still in development and has no maintenance history.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/f-35-service-costs-may-be-more-than-double-ottawas-estimate/article1998507/

[Canadian_Mind]

how the fuck did a 6 billion dollar purchase turn into 30?

If only it was as easy as buying a tank... 6 million apiece.

[BigBri]

why did they buy the f-35 and not the f-22??

[Gunnair]

Quote:

F-35s to cost more than forecast: DND

The Canadian Press

Posted: Apr 25, 2011 9:42 PM ET

Last Updated: Apr 25, 2011 11:25 PM ET
Back to accessibility links


A F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is seen in the hangar waiting for an announcement by Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway Peter MacKay in Ottawa, Friday July 16, 2010. ((Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press))



The Department of National Defence says it's been told the unit price of the F-35 stealth fighter will be higher than the $75 million it planned for, but the military insisted late Monday it can still deliver the program on budget.

The Pentagon, in a recent report to the U.S. Congress, outlined a laundry list of cost increases in the $382 billion US development of the advanced fighter-bomber.

"Canada is not a recipient of the report, however, as an international partner in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, we have been advised that it forecasts an increase in production costs for the JSF Program," said a written statement released to The Canadian Press.

"Once we have an opportunity to see the details of the report, we will be able to assess how it may impact the cost of Canadian production aircraft."

The statement downplayed the impending price hike, saying "a degree of cost variation is envisaged in any program" and defence bureaucrats had built a contingency into the estimated $9-billion purchase price.

For weeks, the Harper government has insisted it will pay around $75 million for each F-35 and furiously rejected criticism from Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, who estimated in March that the sticker price for the radar-evading plane would be more like $148 million apiece.

Alarmed by the uncertainty, the Liberals have promised to cancel the purchase.

The acknowledgment of the price change came as another American report suggested the cost of operating the jets could be billions of dollars more than expected.

An estimate by a Pentagon cost-analysis unit projects it will cost $915 billion to keep the U.S. fleet of 2,443 jets flying for 30 years.

The document, leaked to Bloomberg in Washington, forecasts a lifetime maintenance bill of roughly $375 million per aircraft.

Alan Williams, a former senior Canadian defence official, said the costs would be comparable for the 65 planes the Conservative government intends to purchase, starting in 2017.

Using the Pentagon numbers, the 65 planes would cost more than $24 billion to maintain over 30 years, well above Canadian government estimates.

The cost-analysis group works directly for the U.S. defence secretary and challenges the numbers and assumptions of the Pentagon's project offices. It based its projection on the operating costs of the existing fleets of F-18s, F-16s and U.S. marine corps Harrier jump jets.

Pentagon orders cost review

Much of the debate in Canada over the highly computerized planes has centred on the eye-popping purchase price and only passing attention has been paid to long-term maintenance and service, which the Conservatives have projected at no more than $7 billion over 20 years.

The parliamentary budget officer, in a report just before the Harper government was defeated, pegged service for the F-35 at $19.5 billion over 30 years or roughly $301 million per plane.

Kevin Page faced a storm of criticism from Conservatives in March for suggesting the overall program could cost taxpayers $29.3 billion, but if the new figures from the Pentagon hold, the price tag could go even higher.

"The Pentagon's new forecast represents a significant increase even over what the U.S. expected," said Williams, who is an outspoken critic of the program. "The simple fact is we just don't know how much we'll spend. It just lends more weight to the argument that we should wait."

Repeated warnings about costs spurred the F-35 project office at the Pentagon to commit last week to a sweeping review of what it will take to maintain the aircraft over the long haul.

The study, ordered by project executive officer Vice-Admiral David Venlet, will look at the design of the aircraft to try to figure out what is driving the costs into the stratosphere.

"The service chiefs look at the estimates of the maintenance cost and it makes their knees go weak," said Venlet, according to an April 22 transcript of his remarks. "There is an estimate. We know that is not the right number."

A second, separate report prepared two years ago by the U.S. naval air systems command said long-term support could hit $443 billion, but that estimate was in 2002 dollars.

Venlet said even that is too high.

Williams said there's a lot of uncertainty in the numbers because the plane is still in development and has no maintenance history.

[Thanos]

Paying whatever penalty it costs to withdraw from this deal altogether is looking like the better option with each passing day.

[Gunnair]

Superhornets.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BigBri wrote:

why did they buy the f-35 and not the f-22??

Cuz the US has ZERO intention of selling the F-22 outside the country..to anybody.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos wrote:

Paying whatever penalty it costs to withdraw from this deal altogether is looking like the better option with each passing day.

I'm becoming inclined to agree. Although I think they should take any penalty and stick it someplace since we already forked over more than $100M to help fund the research for it.

[TattoodGirl]

Fuck military....put into paying off the fucks that have been officiating the Nucks games....it will be a win win for the world....Trust me on this!!!!

[Mr_Canada]

These things are ridiculous, the numbers offend me.

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada wrote:

These things are ridiculous, the numbers offend me.

What doesn't offend you anymore? These days you're a HRC's wet dream.

[EyeBrock]

The Globe have been sniping at this purchase all year now. They are always printing Rideau Institute crap and CTV News have joined in the fun too.

Alan Williams left his top bureaucrat post in 2005 when the Tories came in. Williams was an ADM in procurement during the 'Decade of darkness' and a huge critic of the F35 program.

A more balanced approach, instead of scouring the planet for bad news stories on the F35 that are usually, 'may cost more' or 'defence analysts' from such stellar sources like the Rideau wankers would add to the credibility of it all.

Instead the Globe are just whipping up anti-F35 sentiment because it plays into their agenda, whatever it actually is.

[Mr_Canada]

Gunnair wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

These things are ridiculous, the numbers offend me.

What doesn't offend you anymore? These days you're a HRC's wet dream.

[peck420]

There is NO penalty for withdrawing. Aside from the sunk costs of 100M.

There is yet to be an official signing of contract.

Time for us to get out while the getting is good. Continue on as a 3rd tier sponsor of the program, and consider purchase once there is an ACTUAL plane to evaluate and an ACTUAL plane to cost.

Quote:

The 2006 agreement for developing the controversial F-35 stealth fighter jets contains a withdrawal clause that would allow a new government to end Canada's participation with no penalties and appears to contradict the government's claim that Canadian firms involved up to now would suffer.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/f35-10-18-2010

[EyeBrock]

And get what instead peck? An aircraft that is already obsolete to arm Air Command for the next 30 years?