CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Kirkhill]

I'm assuming that offer comes with lifetime maintenance. I saw the part about technology transfer. So double the offer, 72 aircraft for 12 billion. Still much cheaper than 43 billion for 65 F35s

Seigneur Altair - garde 43 BCAD

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page

Table 2:  2014 Full Program Life-Cycle Cost Estimate

Cost Elements Estimate
Million CAD (BY)
($)
Development

Production, Sustainment, Follow-on Development MOU 514
Project Management Office 36
Contingency 83

Development Total 633


Acquisition

Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost
F-35A Airframe 3,328
Vehicle Systems 762
Mission Systems 1,171
Propulsion System 927
Engineering Change Orders 124
URF Sub Total 6,312

Concurrency Modifications 0
Country Unique Modifications 15
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources 56
Ancillary Equipment 263
Sustainment Set-Up
Training Devices 395
Support Equipment 507
Autonomic Logistics 83
Labour 110
Depot Stand-Up 0
Sustainment Set-Up Sub Total 1,095

Initial Spares 331
Reprogramming Lab 221
Infrastructure 254
Ammunition 64
Initial Training 83
Project Management Office 178
Other 42
Contingency (Note 1) 76

Acquisition Total 8,990


Sustainment

Maintenance 6,147
Sustaining Support 3,634
Continuing System Improvements 2,134
    Other 423
Contingency 1,920

Sustainment Total 14,258


Operating

Personnel
Direct Personnel 6,342
Support Personnel 5,137
Sub Total Personnel 11,479

Operating
Aviation Fuel 3,900
Unit Level Consumption 1,845
Base Support Cost 3,512
Sub Total Operating 9,257

Total Operating 20,736

Disposal

Disposal 137
Contingency 42

Disposal Total 179


Full Program Life-Cycle Cost Estimate 44,796

Attrition Replacement (Note 2) 1,036
45,832

Let's start from the bottom and work up.

Disposal Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft  179 MCAD +/- 10%
Operating Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 20,739 MCAD +/- 10%  (personnel, fuel and air bases)
Sustainment Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 14,250 MCAD (note that that includes 2 BCAD in upgrades and 2 BCAD in contingency planning and only 3.6 BCAD in ISS.

So far we are up to 35 BCAD of your 43 BCAD and those numbers are not going to vary appreciably regardless of which aircraft is bought.  On the other hand they will vary massively over time depending on the price of fuel, the value of the Canadian dollar and decisions by foreign governments on whether or not to continue supporting the vendors.

Development costs are a mug's game but essentially more aircraft built equals lower development costs per unit. 

And then to Acquisition = Aircraft and Ancillaries for a total of 8,990 MCAD or 8.99 BCAD.

Of that the actual cost apportioned to buying the aircraft was 6,312 MCAD or 6.312 BCAD.  Ancillaries accounted for 2.6 BCAD.

And my expectation is that ancillary costs would be greater in a small, national, orphan fleet than in a fleet where there are a multitude of partners all chasing the same goals and sharing expertise and technologies.

Take the 43 BCAD number and put it anywhere the sun don't shine.  It is a useless metric for comparing aircraft.  It has value in estimating  the cost of providing the service on the day that it is calculated and on that day only because the day after every assumption made will have been invalidated by events.

 

[Altair]

Super Hornet has similar specs to F35 in this aspect. Gripen is a lightweight compared to other fighters. It was designed for Sweden's small airspace, not vast expanse of Canada.

Silly me though, I thought we were trying to pick a replacement for the Hornet, not tow the Liberal party line. The only reason to exclude F35 is the fear that all the comments made against it will be proven wrong, if/when it wins. I say when, because it's won every non-partisan competition that's been held, beating Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen in countries that are as close to those production lines as we are to American ones.

We don't decide anything.

We simply put out our preferences and watch as the goverment of the day does what it wants.

The conservatives did it with the f35 until that file became too hot to handle and figured they would address it after the election, and the liberals are doing it now in favor of the super hornet.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.

You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.

 

[Altair]

Seigneur Altair - garde 43 BCAD

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page


Let's start from the bottom and work up.

Disposal Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft  179 MCAD +/- 10%
Operating Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 20,739 MCAD +/- 10%  (personnel, fuel and air bases)
Sustainment Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 14,250 MCAD (note that that includes 2 BCAD in upgrades and 2 BCAD in contingency planning and only 3.6 BCAD in ISS.

So far we are up to 35 BCAD of your 43 BCAD and those numbers are not going to vary appreciably regardless of which aircraft is bought.  On the other hand they will vary massively over time depending on the price of fuel, the value of the Canadian dollar and decisions by foreign governments on whether or not to continue supporting the vendors.

Development costs are a mug's game but essentially more aircraft built equals lower development costs per unit. 

And then to Acquisition = Aircraft and Ancillaries for a total of 8,990 MCAD or 8.99 BCAD.

Of that the actual cost apportioned to buying the aircraft was 6,312 MCAD or 6.312 BCAD.  Ancillaries accounted for 2.6 BCAD.

And my expectation is that ancillary costs would be greater in a small, national, orphan fleet than in a fleet where there are a multitude of partners all chasing the same goals and sharing expertise and technologies.

Take the 43 BCAD number and put it anywhere the sun don't shine.  It is a useless metric for comparing aircraft.  It has value in estimating  the cost of providing the service on the day that it is calculated and on that day only because the day after every assumption made will have been invalidated by events.

ok, let's just ignore that number then. What would we go off instead?

 

[AlexanderM]

The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.

You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.

JT made a promise to help him win an election and in his mind there is no going back, so here we sit. There is no way to make this stick to him because the majority of Canadians don't support spending money on the military, so it doesn't matter how wrong he is, they think he's right. This is the no win scenario. I knew as soon as he got elected that we were getting SH's, there was no other possible outcome.

Now, having said that, the only hope is to make it clear that if we walk away from the F35 we may face legal action or a trade board ruling that could cost Canada billions and that would stick to him, so play it for all it's worth. I see no other options.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Canada runs a program called the NATO Air Training Program. Reasons for a twin seat fighter for training.
We also provide a multipurpose fighter attack fighter bomber. Reason for a proven and reliable platform.

I know people have a hate on for the Super Hornet, good for you, your entitled to your opinion, just because you speak loud does not make your opinion more correct nor others more correct. Comparing the Hornet to the Gripen is like comparing a 1/2 ton truck to a 1 ton dually. They will both pull 20,000lbs but which one is better suited?

Assembling and manufacturing are two different aspects of the overall process. It would also be a parts supply issue, there is a big ocean and lots of space to reliably get parts.Look at any other airframe we or the US has bought from over seas for the past 30 years.

NFTC (NATO Flying Training Canada) doesn't train on F-18s. It trains students on Harvard II and Hawk on the basic and advanced flight training as well as fighter lead-in training.  Past that (OTU on the Hornet), training is the responsibility of individual countries.  This is not at all an argument to buy F-models.

 

[Kirkhill]

ok, let's just ignore that number then. What would we go off instead?

The simple one - The cost of recapitalizing the fleet - the Flyaway cost of the aircraft.  Everything else becomes greyer as assumptions are declared.

 

[Altair]

The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.

You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.

of course. This is selling point for the sellers of the Gripen super hornet rafale and eurofighter.

Buy our jets, kill your pilots. For every 5 fighters you buy we cover the death benifits of 1 pilot. Our offers cannot be beat!

Man, I drive an lsvw, don't talk to me about inferior vehicles. The Saab Gripen ng is a lot nicer than a lsvw ever was.

The Americans, the , the Aussies, French,  the German,  the British,  the Italians the Spanish the Swedish,  are not exactly nations you think of when you associate inferior machines. They are NATO partners (Minus the swedes and aussies) many of whom take their defense far more seriously than Canada every would.   

So I'm very sorry if I don't take you seriously when you make it sound like these 4.5 Gen aircraft are pieces of junk. Is the f35 a good aircraft ? I'm sure it will be. I don't think it's worth the damn price. Our forces run on less than 1 percent of the gdp, I'd I can find savings anywhere to help preserve capabilities elsewhere I sure as hell use it. So screw off with I'm in the wrong profession. Go pound sand.

 

[Altair]

The simple one - The cost of recapitalizing the fleet - the Flyaway cost of the aircraft.  Everything else becomes greyer as assumptions are declared.

So you won't compare the maintenance costs of each aircraft?

 

[PuckChaser]

LSVW was a foreign design sold to a Canadian company to prop it up for regional benefits. See the parallels?

 

[Altair]

LSVW was a foreign design sold to a Canadian company to prop it up for regional benefits. See the parallels?

sure do. Apple over there, orange over there.

 

[PuckChaser]

Almost like comparing a full life cycle cost to a purchase only price right?

 

[Altair]

Almost like comparing a full life cycle cost to a purchase only price right?

I cannot tell from the link you provided if the full life cycle cost was included in the Brazilian purchase. I use the facts I have available.

 

[PuckChaser]

There is no possible way $6B Canadian is the full life cycle cost of a jet fighter, regardless of how cheap it is per hour. You've already had the Secretariat report broken down for you, with all the numbers that fit for any aircraft, and it was into the $30B range. The real world doesn't do contracting with full life cycle costs, Brazil is not paying Saab to pay it's pilots, fuel it's planes or maintain hangers for them.

 

[Altair]

There is no possible way $6B Canadian is the full life cycle cost of a jet fighter, regardless of how cheap it is per hour. You've already had the Secretariat report broken down for you, with all the numbers that fit for any aircraft, and it was into the $30B range. The real world doesn't do contracting with full life cycle costs, Brazil is not paying Saab to pay it's pilots, fuel it's planes or maintain hangers for them.

I'm aware.

But some aircraft have inherently lower cost to run than others.

Again, saving money on a more than serviceable aircraft. Money than can be used elsewhere when on considers canada runs it's military on a shoestring budget. If canada spent the 2 percent it's suppose to on the forces, sure, buy the Ferrari of fighter jets. It doesn't. Buy the ford.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I'm aware.

But some aircraft have inherently lower cost to run than others.

Again, saving money on a more than serviceable aircraft. Money than can be used elsewhere when on considers canada runs it's military on a shoestring budget. If canada spent the 2 percent it's suppose to on the forces, sure, buy the Ferrari of fighter jets. It doesn't. Buy the ford.

Altair,

How will the Grippen be relevant in 40 to 50 years when compared to the missions we will be doing against the threat we will be facing?  Yes, the Grippen MAY be suitable now.  It will reach its relevance in the modern battlespace much before we will need to retire it.

 

[Altair]

Altair,

How will the Grippen be relevant in 40 to 50 years when compared to the missions we will be doing against the threat we will be facing?  Yes, the Grippen MAY be suitable now.  It will reach its relevance in the modern battlespace much before we will need to retire it.

you can say that about any of the 4 jets that are not the f35.

The liberals won't be buying the f35. So this is again, the Gripen vs the rafale vs the eurofighter vs the super hornet.

Out of the 4 I like the gripen the best.

 

[SupersonicMax]

you can say that about any of the 4 jets that are not the f35.

The liberals won't be buying the f35. So this is again, the Gripen vs the rafale vs the eurofighter vs the super hornet.

Out of the 4 I like the gripen the best.

Key word: you like.  You have no real substantiation other than glossy brochure from the manufacturer.  The SH, while I am not a fan of the aircraft as a replacement for our fleet, has the most potential in terms of upgradability and would be my pick (between the 3 options) IF we absolutely exclude the JSF. 

If we could open up the competition, I'd go with some F-15E variants (not the Silent Eagle, but the F-15E airframe with custom, but US made, sensors).

 

[PuckChaser]

Problem with SH, is we're on our own for any upgrades post-2030. Everyone else with major fleets will have started retiring them for F-35 or whatever is next. Boeing wants the last little bit of blood out of the stone by flogging ASH, but they'll be focused elsewhere and we'll be left holding the bag.

 

[jmt18325]

Problem with SH, is we're on our own for any upgrades post-2030. Everyone else with major fleets will have started retiring them for F-35 or whatever is next. Boeing wants the last little bit of blood out of the stone by flogging ASH, but they'll be focused elsewhere and we'll be left holding the bag.

Th USN has said that the SH will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and will be flying until at least 2040 - probably longer.