F-35 fighter jets would cost $45.8B over 42 years: audit


mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#1
F-35 fighter jets would cost $45.8B over 42 years: audit


If Canada were to buy F-35 fighter jets and keep them for 42 years, it would cost the nation $44,820,000,000.

That figure, presented in an independent audit by KPMG on Wednesday, sits in contrast to the $16-billion figure the government first estimated in for total ownership back in 2010, when it first announced its intention to buy 65 jets.

That estimate accounts for $9 billion in acquisition, $435 million in development, $7.3 billion for sustainment and another $9 billion for operations.

That assumption is still based on 65 jets, but senior government sources said that as part of the options analysis the government is undertaking, that number could change.

It also does not account for attrition, or planes the military may lose over that time. The department has estimated that cost at approximately $1 billion, but according a senior government source, it has not been included because the purchase of those planes is a policy decision that has not yet been made. Those costs are, however, included in the annual update. With those, the total comes to $45.8 billion.

The KPMG report also stresses that it found “no significant quantifiable differences in the current estimates provided by National Defence” for the next generation fighter program. KPMG points out that a 20-year estimate using its costing framework would come to approximately $25.8 billion, and that DND’s estimate “presented in 2010” was $25.1 billion.

That $25.1 billion actually didn’t appear in 2010. That number only came out after the auditor general’s spring report that identified a further $10 billion in life-cycle costing that was not included in the government’s original estimate, nor was it provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer prior to the release of its 2011 cost assessment.

The auditor general’s report also noted that various upgrades would need to be done to the planes over their lifespans, but those costs were “not known when the 2008 and 2010 budgets were established, but have since been estimated to more than CAN$1.2 billion over 20 years.” According to a defence official, it’s now accounted for in the sustainment costs.

 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#2
How come the Hornets are worn out in 10 - 15 tears while the F-35 just keeps going. Maybe if we spent
this kind of money on the Hornet/super hornet we wouldn't need the F-35. The Hornet is faster.
 
EagleSmack
#3
As a fighter pilot I bet you'd love to strap yourself into one of those Juan.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

As a fighter pilot I bet you'd love to strap yourself into one of those Juan.

Yeah, you can't stop imagination. My concern would be for the innocent bystanders who might suffer from a 74 year old
pilot.... I got some stick time in a jet trainer a while back and the experience was not fun....
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

F-35 fighter jets would cost $45.8B over 42 years: audit
If Canada were to buy F-35 fighter jets and keep them for 42 years, it would cost the nation $44,820,000,000.
That figure, presented in an independent audit by KPMG on Wednesday, sits in contrast to the $16-billion figure the government first estimated in for total ownership back in 2010, when it first announced its intention to buy 65 jets.
That estimate accounts for $9 billion in acquisition, $435 million in development, $7.3 billion for sustainment and another $9 billion for operations.
That assumption is still based on 65 jets, but senior government sources said that as part of the options analysis the government is undertaking, that number could change.
It also does not account for attrition, or planes the military may lose over that time. The department has estimated that cost at approximately $1 billion, but according a senior government source, it has not been included because the purchase of those planes is a policy decision that has not yet been made. Those costs are, however, included in the annual update. With...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Interesting. I wouldn't put it past certain politicians to go for it. And then it's highly likely that after the deed has been done, another bunch of pols gets into the legislature and lets the Forces deteriorate (like the Gliberals did) so the dough was essentially wasted.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Yeah, you can't stop imagination. My concern would be for the innocent bystanders who might suffer from a 74 year old
pilot.... I got some stick time in a jet trainer a while back and the experience was not fun....

lol You know what they say about climbing back on the horse after it dumps you, right? lol

We have a friend who is a Eagle driver and she wouldn't trade her Eagle for a Hornet or a Lightning, and she's flown them both.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Dec 19th, 2012 at 12:21 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Yeah, you can't stop imagination. My concern would be for the innocent bystanders who might suffer from a 74 year old
pilot.... I got some stick time in a jet trainer a while back and the experience was not fun....

If it is any consolation. I happened to be around when John Glenn (the Former Fighter Pilot/ Astronaut) got a demo in an F-18 (two-seater). Even after telling the Navy Pilot before hand to take it easy up there, Glenn still got sick.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

If it is any consolation. I happened to be around when John Glenn (the Former Fighter Pilot/ Astronaut) got a demo in an F-18 (two-seater). Even after telling the Navy Pilot before hand to take it easy up there, Glenn still got sick.

Wonder if the driver was a practical joker.
 
EagleSmack
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Wonder if the driver was a practical joker.

I should have added that it was the Navy Captain of the ship that told the Lt. Cmdr. pilot to go easy up there. I think Juan summed it up, when you've been out of the game and you fly in these things after so many years it is not always a good experience.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I should have added that it was the Navy Captain of the ship that told the Lt. Cmdr. pilot to go easy up there. I think Juan summed it up, when you've been out of the game and you fly in these things after so many years it is not always a good experience.

lol I know. As a kid, my dad's cousin took me in up in a 104 Starfighter (sustained flight at mach 2+ and RoC of around 9 miles a minute). I loved it back then. Now I'd make damned sure there was nothing in my stomach. Unlimited takeoffs are cool but make you feel kinda weird. lol Carrier TOs are just plain spooky to me.

Couple decades ago, we had a chopper pilot living across the alley from us. Went up a few times with him. He was pretty adept and tried a few stunts that would make most folks hurl their cookies. A sudden dive almost had me back then. Nowadays, I'd throttle the joker. lol
Last edited by L Gilbert; Dec 19th, 2012 at 03:47 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol I know. As a kid, my dad's cousin took me in up in a 104 Starfighter (sustained flight at mach 2+). I loved it back then. Now I'd make damned sure there was nothing in my stomach. Unlimited takeoffs are cool but make you feel kinda weird. lol Carrier TOs are just plain spooky to me.

Wow... you are very lucky. My cousin got a ride in an F-16. He said it was incredible.
 
no new posts