F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

can you quote the specifics from the MOU to support your assertion?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Right! Thought so... thanks for playing - the fool!

[punked]

One of the few sources that has total access to the program information, unlike bloggers or the MSM.

Yet that price differs quite a bit from the US set of books. Hmmmm which source should I go with the Canadian total access or the US MORE TOTAL access. Hmmmmmm. I'll go with the one that quotes the 75 Million as the price with out the engine or weapon systems. Now personally seems buying a plane that has no engine is a bad idea but maybe just maybe the government is misleading us on the figures.

Edited April 29, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Right! Thought so... thanks for playing - the fool!

It's not my assertion that our purchase cost, will be outside of any agreements we’ve already signed or will budget for in terms of acquisition costs………especially when said figure is an average of two aircraft that we’re not purchasing.

[Guest Derek L]

Yet that price differs quite a bit from the US set of books. Hmmmm which source should I go with the Canadian total access or the US MORE TOTAL access. Hmmmmmm. I'll go with the one that quotes the 75 Million as the price with out the engine or weapon systems. Now personally seems buying a plane that has no engine is a bad idea but maybe just maybe the government is misleading us on the figures.

The US figure is associated with the development costs that they’ve already paid, and not only on one aircraft, but three.

[punked]

The US figure is associated with the development costs that they’ve already paid, and not only on one aircraft, but three.

Must be why the Neitherlands are also quoting the US price right? Canada is the only partner that gets a break? Again go back and look at the costing. 75 Million is the price with out Weapons systems, with out an engine, and it might be the cost with out software. You are smarter then this go actually research.

[Guest Derek L]

Must be why the Neitherlands are also quoting the US price right? Canada is the only partner that gets a break? Again go back and look at the costing. 75 Million is the price with out Weapons systems, with out an engine, and it might be the cost with out software. You are smarter then this go actually research.

5.58 billion divided by 65= ?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

5.58 billion divided by 65= ?

My point is do I trust the number given to me by an organization that I now know keeps two sets of books on this plane? Or do I trust the Transparent breakdown given to me by the country which is really developing the plane that has been backed up by other countries quotes? It isn't just the US quoting the prices I am it is every other partner country besides Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

My point is do I trust the number given to me by an organization that I now know keeps two sets of books on this plane? Or do I trust the Transparent breakdown given to me by the country which is really developing the plane that has been backed up by other countries quotes? It isn't just the US quoting the prices I am it is every other partner country besides Canada.

And the US is basing their figure on development costs that we're not paying and two other aircraft we're not purchasing.......As for the Dutch, What JSF membership tier are they contrasted with us?

[punked]

And the US is basing their figure on development costs that we're not paying and two other aircraft we're not purchasing.......As for the Dutch, What JSF membership tier are they contrasted with us?

They are Tier 2 but other Tier 3 partners just like us are quoting a much different price then we are. That price seems to be the same one the US is quote I think we are the only country still quoting the 2008 figures even though have changed.

You really think the US is going to subsidize other countries buying this plane at a loss?

[Guest Derek L]

They are Tier 2 but other Tier 3 partners just like us are quoting a much different price then we are. That price seems to be the same one the US is quote I think we are the only country still quoting the 2008 figures even though have changed.

You really think the US is going to subsidize other countries buying this plane at a loss?

And what other figures, by what country, are those?

[punked]

And what other figures, by what country, are those?

How about the 40 billion in life cycle costs as quoted by Denmark to our parliament. I will remind you Denmark is buying about 15 planes less than we are. Why are our numbers so different? Hmmmmm....Geeeee I wonder.

[Guest Derek L]

How about the 40 billion in life cycle costs as quoted by Denmark to our parliament. I will remind you Denmark is buying about 15 planes less than we are. Why are our numbers so different? Hmmmmm....Geeeee I wonder.

The Danes? The Norwegian Admiral, quoted ~10 billion for ~50 aircraft in terms of acquisition costs…….contrast with 15 billion for 65 aircraft for us.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet that price differs quite a bit from the US set of books. Hmmmm which source should I go with the Canadian total access or the US MORE TOTAL access....

US "books" apply to the US only, and include costs you can't even dream about. Personally, I hope Canada gets charged double the going rate just for bitching so much!

[Smallc]

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps willful ignorance.

Show me where they were wrong.

[Army Guy]

5.58 billion divided by 65= ?

Just so i'm right they don't trust the airforce, who wrote and spelled out so even a 5 year old could understand it....Now with no where to go in their argument they come up with 2 sets of books....really guys thats the best you got....Instyead of bitching about the project why don't they just try and reseach it, instead of jumping of the medias wagon....

[Guest Derek L]

Just so i'm right they don't trust the airforce, who wrote and spelled out so even a 5 year old could understand it....Now with no where to go in their argument they come up with 2 sets of books....really guys thats the best you got....Instyead of bitching about the project why don't they just try and reseach it, instead of jumping of the medias wagon....

Well, that would clearly be off message……Surprisingly enough, I don’t remember the Conservatives, well in opposition criticizing the Liberals involving us the F-35 program……I certainly remember the NDP and Liberals being supportive of the Libyan bombing campaign though, it just seems they oppose the replacement of the aircraft that will allow us the ability to engage in further actions into the future.

[waldo]

whaaa! This gem seems to be making the rounds: the F-35... the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot line!

[waldo]

there ya go... rising costs! Dutch to buy fewer F-35 jets than planned

[Guest Derek L]

there ya go... rising costs! Dutch to buy fewer F-35 jets than planned

And the Dutch have been reducing their post-cold war force structure since the 90s………..Your point?

The Dutch are also tier two partners and very much play a greater role in the development of the JSF program than Canada, evident by their purchasing of LRIP aircraft.

[waldo]

And the Dutch have been reducing their post-cold war force structure since the 90s………..Your point?

why, other than F-35 rising costs impacting purchase decisions of JSFail partner countries, I believe you just made (another) point... apparently, the Dutch are reducing, 'force structure'... what's that you say? Associated with something you refer to as "post-cold war". Hey now, watch it or you'll have the PorchDog after you!

[dre]

Well, that would clearly be off message……Surprisingly enough, I don’t remember the Conservatives, well in opposition criticizing the Liberals involving us the F-35 program……I certainly remember the NDP and Liberals being supportive of the Libyan bombing campaign though, it just seems they oppose the replacement of the aircraft that will allow us the ability to engage in further actions into the future.

Bombing Libya did nothing for us, and thats exactly the type of thing we ought not to be involved in.

[Guest Derek L]

why, other than F-35 rising costs impacting purchase decisions of JSFail partner countries, I believe you just made (another) point... apparently, the Dutch are reducing, 'force structure'... what's that you say? Associated with something you refer to as "post-cold war". Hey now, watch it or you'll have the PorchDog after you!

The Dutch, like most of NATO, have been doing exactly that………Our army (and my brother directly) has benefited from the Dutch largess in the form of our “like new” Leopard tanks……..Why replace something that is surplus to your needs?

[Guest Derek L]

Bombing Libya did nothing for us, and thats exactly the type of thing we ought not to be involved in.

I disagree, ensuring Canadian companies foreign access and freedom to operate is something our Government should be doing, as opposed to “nation building”.

[dre]

I disagree, ensuring Canadian companies foreign access and freedom to operate is something our Government should be doing, as opposed to nation building.

We should use our military to get access to foreign resources for corporations?

Send them the bill then, because I aint paying shit.

Edited April 30, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

We should use our military to get access to foreign resources for corporations?

Send them the bill then, because I aint paying shit.

Without breaking into too much drift, and I had this discussion last over multiple pages with M Dancer last year, clearly ensuring unfettered access to foreign resources and trade is in the interests of all western democracies……..Perhaps ugly, but sometimes the truth hurts, and ultimately when the cost of fuel or bread increases and people’s retirement investments tank, do you think most see the correlation:

War = bad

But;

Higher cost of living = bad

What’s worse, seeing a decrease in our standard of living or bumping off the odd third world despot once and while?