Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

Sunday, March 13, 2011

F35 boondoogle

So the Parliamentary Budget Office declares that the Harpocrites have low balled the costs of their F35 fighter purchase, which they sole sourced. They say prove it...that's hard to do when the DOD fails to provide the PBO with any cost estimates, being under the cone of silence imposed by the PMO.

The F35 is a white elephant that has not gotten off the runway yet, you want too know the costs of this ,OK that's easy you just have read the press...
The American and International press that is. Something the PBO did while the Harpocrites continue to deny, deny, deny....So what did Lockheed Martin promise the Harpocrites?

After all Lockheed Martin now also does the information collection for Stats Canada as it does for Stats UK.


Ironically the only persons to protest the mandatory census law in Canada and get charged, which the Harpocrites used to justify the canceling of the Long Form census, were Anti-War/ Anti-Lockheed Martin protesters.


Gates Shakes Up Leadership for F-35 - NYTimes.com

McCain Says F-35 Cost Overruns Have Been `Obscene': Video - Bloomberg


The cost overrun on the main engine for the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet has grown by $600 million over the past year, despite tough cost-cutting measures by engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), a Navy document shows.

The total cost to complete the Pratt F135 engine is now estimated to be $7.28 billion -- $2.5 billion more than the $4.8 billion initially projected for the engine, according to the document, which was first reported by Aviation Week magazine on its website on Wednesday.

That is an increase of $600 million from the $1.9 billion cost overrun that was reported last year by the House Armed Services Committee.

Pratt spokeswoman Erin Dick said she was not familiar with the new number, and emphasized that the company's aggressive cost-cutting measures were taking effect.

Pentagon officials disclosed last week that the F-35 joint strike fighter program so far has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent.

These revelations come as no surprise considering the history of this program. The Government Accountability Office concluded that F-35 estimated acquisition costs have increased $46 billion and development extended two-and-a-half years compared to the program baseline approved in 2007.

The price per aircraft projected at $69 million in 2001 is now up to $112 million, according to GAO. The Pentagon plans to acquire 2,443 jets for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Foreign nations also are expected to buy the aircraft.

A congressional auditor said Thursday that the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, "continues to struggle with increased costs and slowed progress," leading to "substantial risk" that the defense contractor will not be able to build the jet on time or deliver as many aircraft as expected.

Michael Sullivan, the U.S. Government Accountability Office's top analyst on Lockheed Martin's jet fighter, also known as the F-35 Lightning II, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing that the cost of the program has increased substantially and that development is 2 1/2 years behind schedule.

The United States plans to buy about 2,400 of the fighter jets for the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Navy. The projected cost for the program appears to have increased to $323 billion from $231 billion in 2001, when Bethesda-based Lockheed won the deal, according to Sullivan. Eight other countries -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway -- also plan to buy the jets.

The cost to build the plane is now expected to be $112 million per aircraft, according to a GAO auditor.



US Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Hits Afterburners on Cost Overrun


POSTED BY: Robert Charette / Fri, March 12, 2010

The US Department of Defense officially announced that the Joint Strike Fighter aka F-35 Lightning II will breach a Nunn-McCurdy Amendment critical threshold on 1 April - an appropriate day, I think.

The Nunn-McCurdy Amendment says that a major defense program is considered to have incurred a "critical breach" if it exceeds the current baseline cost estimate by more than 25% or the original baseline cost estimate by 50%.

Defense officials told the US Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing yesterday that the estimated cost per F-35 aircraft had risen from $50.2 million to somewhere between $80 to $95 million in 2002 constant dollars. The program has also slipped its schedule by at least two and a half years as well for the USAF and Navy versions of the aircraft (it was slipped by 2 years in 2004 as well).

As a result of the breach, the DoD must certify to the US Congress that the program is essential for national security, which it will, of course; and Congress - which is very unhappy with the program's management (the government's program manager was recently fired) - will continue to fund the F-35 because there is little other choice.

The other eight nations participating in the program - Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the U.K. - aren't going to be happy about the cost increases either. I suspect some sweetheart deal will be made to make them less unhappy.

The F-35 program, which has a total life cycle cost of over $1 trillion dollars, was promised to be a "model acquisition program" which would avoid the cost overruns and schedule slips of past aircraft programs like the F-22 Raptor and provide an "affordable next generation strike aircraft."

The JSF website says that, "The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft."

They may want to now amend that sentence.


The Australians are now seriously reconsidering their purchase of the F35

Because the RAAF’s Hornets are aging, Canberra approved the purchase of
Super Hornets as an interim aircraft between the classic Hornet and the
F-35. Aerospace industry and military officials contend that without the
Super Hornet to make the task of integration incremental, the shift
from Hornet to F-35 would likely have become a nightmare of increased cost, complexity and schedule overruns.


And yes Joe and Janey Canuk there is an alternative to this overpriced piece of war machinery...And Japan is looking at buying it....

The F-35, otherwise known as the ball and chain seemingly the entire Western world finds itself chained to, is probably not looking so good to Tokyo right now.

Now, delays suggest the F-35, another stealthy, state-of-the-art option, will not be available until 2020, which could leave a longer-than-acceptable gap for Japan.

Enter the Eurofighter, which is not as advanced as the F-22 or F-35 _ known as fifth-generation fighters_ but is already in service.

The supersonic aircraft, which made its first flight in 1994, is used by six countries: Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain, Austria and Saudi Arabia. Its makers are looking to sell the fighter to Greece, Denmark, Romania, Qatar and India. It is believed to cost about $100 million per aircraft.

A big part of the Eurofighter sales pitch is that it will not tightly restrict the transfer of technology, which means some of it could eventually be built in Japan _ a significant plus for Japanese planners concerned with domestic industry. The U.S. options may not be as generous.

"The Eurofighter group has offered Tokyo lots of sweeteners, including industrial participation," he said. "If the U.S. side can't come up with something equally attractive, then I think it will be difficult for Tokyo to choose a less beneficial deal."

Christopher Hughes, a Japan specialist and political scientist at the University of Warwick, said he believes Tokyo may go for the Eurofighter as a gap-filler, then buy the F-35 once it is ready.

"My feeling is that the Eurofighter might have a chance, but not as the main F-X," he said. "It ticks a lot of boxes and is ready to go, and whilst not cheap, probably nowhere near as costly as the F-35."

Besides budget Hawks like McCain even the Conservative think tank the Hudson Institute is critical of the F35 boondoggle.

Do you know "Cheop's Law"? Named for the Pharaoh who built the great pyramid, and postulated by the author Robert Heinlein, it runs:"Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget." Anyone who questions the wisdom of this maxim should examine the Defense budgets of the world's democracies, apart from the average home remodeling project.

The US should be getting better results for the money it spends. The quality of an F-22 air superiority fighter , for example, is not in question, but if the President and Congress decide that we can only afford 187 of them, compared to a certified need for 380, then something is terribly wrong. The same problem of excessive costs leading to a severely curtailed procurement, afflicted the B-2 bomber: only 21 were bought when the air force needed about 120. Today, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is in danger of being canceled or curtailed due to an estimated overall 65% cost increase since 2002.
The problem with the military projects in the US is that it is their form of state capitalism, which Eisenhower called the 'Military Industrial Complex.'

"Big military contractors, like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Boeing, have a relationship with the government that is unusual and tight. In some ways, they operate almost as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pentagon, which can provide the bulk of their revenues."

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Military Waste


All capital invested in the military is waste as Veblen and Galbraith have pointed. It is the creative destructive aspect of capitalism as Schumpeter called it. Military spending destroys capital, both excess production and workers.

And government waste rises with the increase in investment in military spending. Investment in social programs on the other hand are attacked by the right as spending and waste rather than what it really is investment in social capital.


How much happiness does big money buy the military? A lot less than it hoped.

Even after Liberal and Conservative cash injections, the forces are struggling to rebuild and renew while fighting a very different and difficult 21st century war. Equally worrying for the department, the consensus that led successive governments to boost spending to modern highs is cracking as other political priorities emerge.

Senior government officials and academics confirm entrenched problems aren't evaporating with a budget that will top $18 billion next year, some 27 per cent higher than before 9/11, according to a report released this week.

Its highest since World War II and more than 100 times higher than federal spending to combat homelessness.

While our troops are fighting the war in Afghanistan, the defence department spent $32 million last year on -- furniture


Ah the joy of being part of the NATO Military Industrial Complex.


SEE

The Tory Nanny State

Canada Celebrates Star Wars

The Budget Item Flaherty Forgot

State Capitalism Quebec Style

Defense Lobbyist Now Minister

Derek Burney Voice of America

Contracting Out Is A Crime

Guns and Butter for Conservatives

Liberals Military Heritage

Canada's State Capitalist Success


Job Protection for


Canadian Reservists



The image “http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/320/2006-08-31-Troops.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Whose Arctic


Twenty years ago it was proposed that Canada needed a nuclear powered submarine fleet to defend Arctic Sovereignty. Post War Canada once boasted the lead in submarine hunter killer helicopters and planes to protect its sovereignty. Along comes Harper with much sturm and drang about protecting the Arctic with Ice Breakers. But then the Russians challenge his bluff.

In the next day or two a mini submarine will plant a Russian flag
hewn from titanium 14,000ft beneath the North Pole, along with the country's coat of arms.

Although it will be a symbolic gesture and carries no legal weight, it is designed to send the West a clear message: Russia has shrugged off its post-cold war weakness and will be aggressively defending and pushing its national interests from now on.

If it goes smoothly, the flag planting, reminiscent of the kind of propaganda coup beloved by the Soviets, will feed a rising state-orchestrated sense of patriotism and national pride.

It will also be the beginning of what is likely to be a lengthy international struggle for the Arctic Ocean's riches, with Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States and Russia all having competing interests in the hydrocarbon-stuffed area.


The 1987 military review highlighted Canada's abysmal capabilities of enforcing sovereignty on its Arctic coast. It was therefore announced that MARCOM would receive a fleet of 10-12 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) suitable for operating for extended periods under the Arctic ice. The proposed SSN fleet would force any nation, friend or foe, to possibly think twice before using Canada's territorial seas in the Arctic for operating nuclear submarines. During 1987-1988, MARCOM examined several British and French SSN designs. The planned procurement, however, was cancelled in 1988-1989 during a time of increased defence cuts.

In 1998, the Canadian government made a deal with the United Kingdom to acquire four mothballed, but state-of-the-art Upholder-class diesel-electric submarines that were made surplus by the Royal Navy's decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines such as the Trafalgar-class boats. The Upholders were considered too valuable and technologically advanced by the Royal and US navies to allow them to fall into the hands of a non-allied nation. Therefore Canada was encouraged through significant discounts to acquire the Upholders. The four submarines were eventually purchased after much foot-dragging by the federal government for $750 million CAD.

The transaction was supposed to have included some reciprocal rights for British forces to continue using CFB Suffield for armoured-unit training and CFB Goose Bay for low-level flight training, while Canada received four well-built and very lightly used high-technology submarines to replace the 1960s-era Oberon class. (It was later revealed that there were no reciprocal rights. It was a plain lease-to-buy arrangement.) After a costly update program which took longer than expected, along with several public and highly embarrassing equipment failures, the Upholders are being successfully reactivated following a decade of mothballing and are now being integrated into the Canadian navy as the Victoria class. Technical problems still seem to plague the fleet however. Part of this deal will see MARPAC receive its first submarine in four decades and returning an active submarine presence to Canada's west coast.



SEE:

Polar Bears Threaten Tories Arctic Sovereignty


Tories Ignore Arctic Climate Change


Petrocan's Arctic Sovereignty


US Declares War For The Arctic


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,,,, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Overturn This

Our law and order pro military federal government likes to overturn Liberal government laws, how about this one. Betcha they don't.

Ottawa has always admitted mismanaging the veterans funds by failing to invest the money or to credit them with any interest.

However, the government decided to start paying interest in 1990, but passed legislation blocking claims for interest before then.

It was that law the Supreme Court upheld in 2003.

By some estimates, the award would have topped $6 billion with accrued interest had it been allowed to stand.


SEE:

Rememberance or Revisionism

Harper War Monger

An End to Colonial Assimilation?

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Tory Boondoggle

Shades of the Liberal Gun Registry....

Cost of new tanks $1.3 billion, double initial estimate

O'Connor Lowballed War Costs


Just one more reason for the senile Minister of Defense to resign.


Hillier

" I can get you one tank for the price of 2"


O'Connor

"Can I buy a tank a year?"


Hillier;

"Sure, we have a great twenty year payment plan with options"











Also See:

Tanks For The Memories


Kandahar

Afghanistan

O'Connor



The image “http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/320/2006-08-31-Troops.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
,
, , , , , , , , , ,

, ,, ,



Friday, April 13, 2007

Just In Time War


When capital needs to speed up production of surplus value, profit, it makes workers work faster, longer, it takes its investment in each worker and forces them to produce more. This is known as the speed up.

The development of Toyotaization of manufacturing is known as 'Just In Time Production'. Production is set at an upper limit, no excess stock is manufactured any goods needed are then produced on as need basis.

This is the rational behind the Bush Surge in Iraq. The reservists and volunteers are the working class and the factory conditions are replicated within the military;

Army Extends Iraq Tours to 15 Months

Pentagon extends tours for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

15 Month Tours in Iraq? The War is Breaking Our Military

This is no different than the forced Over Time (OT) that workers in America have faced since the 1980's. Reductions in workers, layoffs, etc. led to increased OT for those that remained, increasing America's productivity. Productivity, the creation of surplus value; profit, was the mantra of the corporations adopting their management models to the need of capital.

And since these same neo-cons were in charge of the war in Iraq, they determined to use a corporatist model of political economy of war. While workers in the G6 produce material, those same workers in Iraq and Afghanistan destroy the excess production.

Since the U.S. armed forces,like Canada's, are the surplus working class, an all volunteer force, they act as a force on production; profit. Not only for the War Profiteers, but for those in the service of the State and those who having been formally associated with the State are now private contractors.

Since the U.S. has no extra armed forces it can put in the field it plays numbers games. This has been the whole reason d'etre of the neo-cons. Rumsfeld is gone but his policy lives one.

A volunteer army is working class, they joined not to fight in Iraq but because prior to 9/11 they were promised jobs, and training in job skills. And like their counter parts in industrial capitalist economies, the working class who fights Capitals wars are insufficient for their purposes. Thus the privatization of war in Iraq, the hiring of mercenaries to do your dirty work. Even with the privatization of security, cleaning, cooking and other services there are still not enough troops in the regular military to conduct this neo-con war, so their shifts at work are extended.

This is Class War according to the neo-con political economy; speed up and just in time production. The surge is the speed up, the lack of troops is the just in time model. Further added to this was the other cornerstone of neo-con political economy; privatization. There are as many private security forces in Iraq as their are U.S. military personnel. War conducted on a business model is Rumsfelds legacy which is legacy of failure.
Red flag or white flag? Bush wants somebody else to run Iraq war


See:

A Surge in Terrorism

Sadr Surge

Surge In Iraq

Vietnamization of Iraq

Calling A Spade A Shovel


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , ,

, , ,
, , , ,