Canada Charged Six Times As Much As US Navy for Super Hornets

Defense-Aerospace.com ^ | Sept 14, 2017 | Giovanni de Briganti

[Rinnwald]

Had a beer with a guy in the 1990’s that said he served as a mechanic in the RCAF in the 1950’s. He worked on Bristol Beaufighters. Was amazed I knew they had sleeve-valve engines. Said they would try to use them as interceptors for Soviet recon planes that had twice the speed (TU-95 Bears?). Didn’t work out too well.

So yeah, the Clunks were probably a big improvement.

[Yo-Yo]

So what happened to Canada trying to buy Australia’s soon-to-be cast-off F/A-18A/Bs on the cheap?

[Yo-Yo]

You want to know what put the final nail in Avro's coffin?

[spetznaz]

I agree with your post. However, doesn’t the same argument hold for the F-35 as well? In that the USAF/USN will buy very many of them, meaning that foreign buyers (with their considerably lower acquisitions) will pay significantly more than the US? Or that FMS security deletions and country codes over the smaller purchase orders from foreign buyers will add more costs? And consequently, while the author may be wrong about a number of things, one premise he nails 100% is where he states that foreign buyers of the F-35 should be prepared for a significantly different price from the F-35 and shouldn’t rely on whatever the US will be paying (at all).

[albertabound]

up yours...we just happen to live next door ...and provide a nice buffer between you birds and the Russians...and we would be sacrificed in a heartbeat....by the way ...who are you defending us from... what nations are rioting about screaming” Death to Canada”...this purchase is our commitment to NORAD which also protects your sorry ass.

[hal ogen]

Hahahaha.

[Hulka]

Good question.

“the USAF/USN will buy very many of them, meaning that foreign buyers (with their considerably lower acquisitions) will pay significantly more than the US?”

The JSF is a joint endeavor from the start, one of the benefits for signing the LOA early. Signing early means the country is locked-in to a reduced price and sometimes a price-shared with other like countries operating with the same security deletions. This cost-sharing plan ensures a wider customer base and affordability.

However, there are per-country costs that must be carried only by the purchasing country.

But the JSF was deliberately designed for cost-sharing R&D (group buy), and that required a huge effort to get approval for a broader exception to national disclosure policy (NDP-shared level of hardware and software development and fielding: http://www.discs.dsca.mil/documents/ips/AppB_062009.pdf, http://www.discs.dsca.mil/documents/ips/Chapter3_04052010.pdf).

Please notice the list of buying countries, all very similar in their allegiance to a US-led partnership.

And because they are part of the same US-led team, this made obtaining an NDP authorization to jointly pursue the JSF much easier for the allies: http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm)

So, price should be about the same as US pricing. However, given each country has their own security deletion requirements and country specific software adjustments, they will pay an increased price, nominally, because the negotiated price in the LOA will be agreed beforehand and while each country pays its own non-recurring R&D, they will not be that far off than USAF/USN cost.

“one premise he nails 100% is where he states that foreign buyers of the F-35 should be prepared for a significantly different price from the F-35 and shouldn’t rely on whatever the US will be paying (at all).”

Pretty much true, meaning the price the US pays will be different than the price allies will pay—but NOT that much different. And the buying partners will each pay a different price, too, but very close to each other.

Cheers,