F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

where's waldo?: Associated with something you refer to as "post-cold war". Hey now, watch it or you'll have the PorchDog after you!

If you think that the game is suddenly over because the Soviet Union fell, you really are daft. Call this period 'post-whatever you want', the fact remains Russia could light us up many times over with nuclear weapons. Plus, their EWS is so buggered-up that the chance for a mistake is significant.

Their bomber force...supposedly a non-issue...carries more thermonuclear weapons (800+) than their submarine force. Meanwhile, you might want to look-up what an RS-24 Yars is. Now why would a country with not a shread of its old Cold War ways want one...errr...many...of those?

Edited April 30, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

If you think that the game is suddenly over because the Soviet Union fell, you really are daft. Call this period 'post-whatever you want', the fact remains Russia could light us up many times over with nuclear weapons. Plus, their EWS is so buggered-up that the chance for a mistake is significant.

Their bomber force...supposedly a non-issue...carries more thermonuclear weapons (800+) than their submarine force. Meanwhile, you might want to look-up what an RS-24 Yars is. Now why would a country with not a shread of its old Cold War ways want one...errr...many...of those?

In fairness though, with the demise of the Soviets Russians conventional force and the now apprehension to nation build, it’s rather hard to justify, especially for most European nations, the requirement to have multiple armoured and mechanized formations on the books………As suggested by myself last year, though no direct correlation between the two (even my ego isn’t that large ), and as demonstrated by the Obama administrations refocusing of the American military (amongst most others in the West), the trending is to revert back to the most tried and tested form of expeditionary warfare………..Gunboat Diplomacy.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

In fairness though, with the demise of the Soviets Russians conventional force and the now apprehension to nation build, it’s rather hard to justify, especially for most European nations, the requirement to have multiple armoured and mechanized formations on the books………As suggested by myself last year, though no direct correlation between the two (even my ego isn’t that large ), and as demonstrated by the Obama administrations refocusing of the American military (amongst most others in the West), the trending is to revert back to the most tried and tested form of expeditionary warfare………..Gunboat Diplomacy.

I honestly expect Russia to act as it has acted throughout history since Peter the Great and perhaps earlier.

[Guest Derek L]

I honestly expect Russia to act as it has acted throughout history since Peter the Great and perhaps earlier.

Though I tend not worry too much about them, if they did invade Western Europe, I’m forced to ask, should we really concern ourselves a third time with the misfortune of Europe?

The next, in my opinion (which is shared by many) World War will be focused and fought in the Pacific.

[DogOnPorch]

Though I tend not worry too much about them, if they did invade Western Europe, I’m forced to ask, should we really concern ourselves a third time with the misfortune of Europe?

The next, in my opinion (which is shared by many) World War will be focused and fought in the Pacific.

Russia has always been less about the invading...more about the invasions. This has resulted in a rather cynical if not paranoid outlook to the future. See: the missile shield for an example. Or Napoleon...lol.

[waldo]

If you think that the game is suddenly over because the Soviet Union fell, you really are daft.

ala Wikileaks... trust in your boy, Harper... try to keep up hey?

One cable drafted by U.S. diplomats in Ottawa portrays Mr. Harper as dismissing the need for a military response to Russia over the Arctic. It includes an account from a Canadian official of a January, 2010, meeting between Mr. Harper and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in which the PM said NATO has no role in the Arctic.

“

According to PM Harper, Canada has a good working relationship with Russia with respect to the Arctic, and a NATO presence could backfire by exacerbating tensions,” the cable states.

“He commented that there is no likelihood of Arctic states going to war, but that some non-Arctic members favoured a NATO role in the Arctic because it would afford them influence in an area where ‘they don’t belong.’

”

[DogOnPorch]

ala Wikileaks... trust in your boy, Harper... try to keep up hey?

Once again, Harper is 'not my boy'. Did not vote for him. That's about the fifth time I've mentioned it.

[waldo]

Once again, Harper is 'not my boy'. Did not vote for him. That's about the fifth time I've mentioned it.

oh, haven't noticed

[DogOnPorch]

oh, haven't noticed

Well try to keep up.

[bush_cheney2004]

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,.....

'Zactly !! What the hell do they think PM Martin was doing in a Libyan tent?

[eyeball]

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

Bumping off dictators, and a sizable number if innocent civilians, under the pretense we're doing so for humanitarian reasons instead of the real reason you just stated - especially when we formerly supported said dictator for our lucre.

[DogOnPorch]

Bumping off dictators, and a sizable number if innocent civilians, under the pretense we're doing so for humanitarian reasons instead of the real reason you just stated - especially when we formerly supported said dictator for our lucre.

Nobody is stopping you from wearing the ol' porcupine quill shirt and commencing with the self-flagellation.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110322/canadian-cf-18s-operation-odyssey-dawn-libya-110322/

[GostHacked]

By the time one actually rolls off the assembly line, we might be able to afford ONE of these F-35 units. They still can't fix the pilot's oxygen issue in the F-22s ......

[DogOnPorch]

By the time one actually rolls off the assembly line, we might be able to afford ONE of these F-35 units. They still can't fix the pilot's oxygen issue in the F-22s ......

OBOGS are pretty new to the scene but it beats flying around with several dozen litres of LOX waiting to (help) explode the plane. Much easier on maintenance than a LOX system which needs daily care. LOX is just generally very dangerous and hard to handle. But, yup...they gotta work.

[Topaz]

I think we all agree with F-35 is getting old and tired. The Tories have their majority and they are going to do what they want on this and it looks like they are going to listen to the Air Force and wait out the F-35 until it can pass the test. Now, the only item that could change their mind is if the price doubles. I don't know how they will be able to stick to the 9 Bil and buy 65 jets if price goes up and I'm sure it will because some of the 8 countries are only buying half the number. So if they buy this F-65 and down the road its turns into a lemon and we have spent 15,25 or 35 Bil for them, the Tories will be #3 in the House of Commons. It seems like a lot of money to see it get blown out of the sky, plus losing the pilot.

[waldo]

nothing quite like a concise summation of the 'Harper Conservative Dishonesty' within the F-35 timeline (h/t blogger Sixth Estate):

1997 — The Liberal government joins the Joint Strike Fighter design team with an initial buy-in of $10 million, guaranteeing them the right to have Canadian companies get procurement contracts if they eventually buy the F-35. Another $150 million was provided in 2001. At this point, Canada has only purchased rights to buy the aircraft — it hasn’t actually committed to anything.

2002-2006 — Under the Industrial Regional Benefits Policy, any foreign military contractor must agree to invest in Canadian business activities an amount equal to the cost of the contract (but it doesn’t necessarily have to be in building the specific vehicles which will be supplied to the Canadian military. In a series of memoranda, the Chretien and Harper governments agree to exempt Lockheed from the Industrial Benefits Policy, even though this is the largest military contract so far in Canadian history.

2006 — A new agreement is signed under which Canada gives Lockheed several hundred million dollars to maintain its spot on the purchase rights list. According to the Auditor General, although the Defence Department should have immediately began consulting with Public Works on how to make sure the F-35 purchase was legal, instead, Conservative defence ministers Gordon O’Connor and Peter MacKay conceal the relevant paperwork from Public Works until 2009.

2008 — The Defence Department draws up a list of 14 requirements that future Canadian fighter aircraft must meet. It identifies three aircraft that meet these needs. Although the other two are already available, the review absurdly recommends continued involvement in the F-35 project on the grounds that it is the cheapest aircraft.

2010 – The official purchasing process begins. Government contracting law requires that the government hold a public competition for any non-emergency procurement project valued at over $25,000 unless paperwork is filed with Public Works establishing that only one contractor can meet the statement of requirements. In July, the Harper government announces that the F-35 will be purchased without a competition. In August, the military writes a new statement of requirements for Public Works which allegedly provides retroactive justification for what was, in effect, an illegal announcement.

In subsequent statements, the federal government claims that this statement of requirements was the basis for the decision not to hold a competition, even though the statement was actually drawn up after the decision not to hold a competition.

2010 — In accordance with government policy, the military drew up an estimated cost for the F-35 which included acquisition and operating costs. According to this estimate, it would cost about $9 billion to purchase the plane, plus $16 billion in operating costs, for a total of $25 billion. This estimate is based on a 20-year lifespan for the plane with no replacements for attrition — even though DND is already planning to use the plane for 36 years, and to purchase replacement aircraft as necessary.

2011 — The Parliamentary Budget Officer releases a public report estimating that the F-35 will cost $12 billion to buy and $18 billion to operate, for a total cost of about $30 billion. In response, the government publicly announces that the Budget Officer is incompetent and releases a new estimate claiming that the aircraft will cost $9 billion to purchase and just $6 billion in sustainment costs, for a total of about $15 billion. They do not draw attention to the fact that with the operating costs included, as the PBO report did, their internal estimate and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s public report are actually pretty much the same.

During the election, in response to concerns that the Budget Officer has identified likely cost increases, Harper states that Canada has signed a “contract” fixing the costs of the F-35. This statement was false; Canada has never signed a contract for the F-35, or at least not yet.

2012 — Peter MacKay files his department’s annual plans and priorities report with Parliament, stating that the F-35 project is in the “definition” phase, with full costing details already approved by the Treasury Board. Later, after the A-G report (see below), he files an “erratum” to the report, indicating that a “typographical error” by a lower-level bureaucrat had replaced “option analysis” with “definition.” (In the “option analysis” phase, the government is still considering a purchase and does not yet have costing details to submit to the Treasury.)

The Auditor-General releases a report indicating that, in addition to covering up $10 billion in estimated costs at the time of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, the Defence Minister has concealed at least that much in additional costs due to the longer planned lifecycle of the aircraft and the failure to include costs for replacement aircraft, upgrade programs, and weapons for the aircraft. (Weapons? For a fighter aircraft?)

Both Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s departments inform the Auditor-General prior to the release of the report that they disagree with its contents. In Parliament after its release, however, they state that they agree with the report and accept its conclusions.

In response, a Parliamentary committee begins to consider the Auditor-General’s report. The NDP members of the committee propose a list of witnesses to be called for the investigation. However, the Conservatives refuse to accept the list and initially state that the Auditor-General will not be allowed to testify about his own report. In the ensuing uproar in the House, they retreat and agree that allow him to speak. The committee “investigation” is currently ongoing, but is controlled by the Conservative members.

(emphasis added)

[cybercoma]

Can we stop perpetuating the myth that the CPC is the party of openness and transparency now? Reform Party supporters ought to be appalled.

[punked]

Can we stop perpetuating the myth that the CPC is the party of openness and transparency now? Reform Party supporters ought to be appalled.

That was number one on their list when the Liberals were in power.

[Guest Derek L]

USA pegs value of Japanese F-35 deal at $10 billion

vs

DND F-35 narrative

So the non JSF partner (hence paying for some development costs) Japanese are paying 10 billion for 42 aircraft and support, contrasted with Canada paying 14.7 billion for 65 aircraft and 20 years support, for a difference of about ~10-15 million dollars per aircraft………….

But why would the Japanese buy such a “dog”? They’re not married to the program? What do the Japanese need a “stealth attack bomber” for?

[Fletch 27]

Ummmmm, there is this new "start-up" called NORTH KOREA!?!?!?!? OMG you lefties can twist a story and fudge with the facts..

If you visit Japan as often as I am you will SEE the worry and speculation in the media and in discussions over the bento-box..

USA pegs value of Japanese F-35 deal at $10 billion

vs

DND F-35 narrative

So the non JSF partner (hence paying for some development costs) Japanese are paying 10 billion for 42 aircraft and support, contrasted with Canada paying 14.7 billion for 65 aircraft and 20 years support, for a difference of about ~10-15 million dollars per aircraft………….

But why would the Japanese buy such a “dog”? They’re not married to the program? What do the Japanese need a “stealth attack bomber” for?

[Guest Derek L]

Ummmmm, there is this new "start-up" called NORTH KOREA!?!?!?!? OMG you lefties can twist a story and fudge with the facts..

If you visit Japan as often as I am you will SEE the worry and speculation in the media and in discussions over the bento-box..

I’m a "leftie"? First time for everything I suppose……

Edited May 3, 2012 by Derek L

[Fletch 27]

Sorry, Was directed elswhere... I can see by your spelling and grammar you are not a leftie..

I’m a "leftie"? First time for everything I suppose……

[Rick]

I’m a "leftie"? First time for everything I suppose……

I'm going to be sick..

Please please, never again associate yourself as one of us...even if others are accusing you of it.

[Tilter]

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

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

But you will pay taxes.

[Topaz]

CTV is reporting that the Page said that the government knew the exactly cost of the F-35 but with held it. The credibility and the honesty of the Tories are getting to the bottom of the barrel. I remember when the numbers first came out and when the opposition parties were questioning them, they did give the Tories a chance to say the number were wrong, but they stay silent. http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120503/kevin-page-budget-officer-f35s-120503/20120503/?hub=WinnipegHome