F-35 Purchase

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/03/pol-fighter-jet-committee.html

The Department of National Defence only gave partial information to parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page when his office was preparing its report on the costs of the F-35s in 2011, he testified Thursday.

Page and his assistant budget officer Sahir Khan told MPs on the public accounts committee that they have now learned in the wake of Auditor General Michael Ferguson's report released in April that they didn't get all the information they asked DND for when Page's office was trying to calculate the full life cycle costs of the planes the government is considering buying to replace the CF-18 fleet, as per a request from the Commons finance committee.

"From the auditor general's report we've learned that we've received only partial information with respect to what we call sustainment or on the operating and support costs," Page said.

When asked why he didn't get everything he asked for, Page responded, "We don’t know the reason for that."

They don't know the reason? And yet these idiots are the ones making the final decision.

[cybercoma]

It's pretty clear the government's position on this whole thing is untenable.

Why didn't Canadians and Parliament see the same numbers that the cabinet saw?

That's what needs to be answered.

[eyeball]

It's pretty clear the government's position on this whole thing is untenable.

Why didn't Canadians and Parliament see the same numbers that the cabinet saw?

That's what needs to be answered.

It seems pretty simple, to stay in power Conservatives needed to keep Canadians in a state of ignorant bliss and Parliament would have cocked that up. They certainly didn't want this to be an issue during an election and lo and behold it wasn't.

It reeks of the same sort of duplicitous corruption I'm used to seeing in DFO. The recent changes to the Fisheries Act and EI and who knows what else that are tucked into the last budget are similarly sneaky in the way they bypass both the public and Parliament.

[waldo]

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

and to add notice

Australia pushes back F-35 buy, citing costs and US delay

which lines up with the earlier notice

Italy to cut Joint Strike Fighter orders

[dre]

and to add notice

Australia pushes back F-35 buy, citing costs and US delay

which lines up with the earlier notice

Italy to cut Joint Strike Fighter orders

I dont imagine proponents of this plane will bat an eye over that. I mean... they believe this is the only plane that we can possibly buy. And they believe we must buy planes.

So appealing to them on the basis of cost is rather useless. The tune would be the same thing if it was going to cost 50 billion or 100 billion, or 200 billion.

[Guest Derek L]

and to add notice

Australia pushes back F-35 buy, citing costs and US delay

which lines up with the earlier notice

Italy to cut Joint Strike Fighter orders

So? The Australians aren’t reducing their requirements, as made evident with today’s budget, but are differing costs of several big ticket defence items (Collins class replacement, 155mm Howitzers and the F-35) out several years well currently funding several other large purchases today (Canberra & Hobart classes and the Sea/Blackhawk and Sea King replacements)…….Politically speaking the Gillard Government is doing the coalition tap dance over the budget and overextended themselves with maintaining the ‘09 Labour white paper with proposal to not only replace, but double the RAN’s submarine fleet with a price tag that will make the F-35 look like change found under the couch……..Their Government could fall anytime.

As for the Italians, aside from being an economic basket case and likely seeing cuts across the board (including defence), their air force and navy are purchasing the “B” version, again, a different version then us.

No comment on the Japanese deal though eh?

[waldo]

I dont imagine proponents of this plane will bat an eye over that. I mean... they believe this is the only plane that we can possibly buy. And they believe we must buy planes.

So appealing to them on the basis of cost is rather useless. The tune would be the same thing if it was going to cost 50 billion or 100 billion, or 200 billion.

clearly... MLW member 'Derek L' (aka head cheerleader) downplayed the Dutch reduction as a reflection of "post-cold war restructuring". He now labels the Australia delay as no biggee... presuming to suggest they're not reducing requirements; however, apparently he can't read the linked article that states the delay is a "decision delay"... to buy or not to buy (re. rising costs and the ever burgeoning concerns over JSFail). But it gets better when MLW member 'Derek L' simply shrugs off the Italian reduction... another no biggee. Of course, as reflects the increasing F-35 costs associated with the U.S. itself reducing/delaying it's own purchases, each of these other JSFail partner nation decisions to delay/reduce, equally, have cost implications on the overall JSFail program scheduling/costs. But... apparently... no biggee to MLW member 'Derek L'!

as for Japan: the deal isn't signed... yet and... Japan's rising F-35 bill prompts questions for Canada (of course, expect a cheerleading response that suggests JSFail partnership has its privileges that partner countries "should" expect lower costs than Japan... ya, ya)

[Topaz]

I too, have a report from Australia and they have to pay 130 million per jet, then if they buy 100 it would go down to 85mil. Unless each of these countries get a win fall of some kind I don't know where the money is going to come from unless they do what Harper is doing and cut back on all departments to get the money for the jets. I think the price will have to go up because of the law in the US, they can't sell the jets less than what they have to pay themselves. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/13302539/first-raaf-jsfs-to-cost-130m-each/

Edited May 4, 2012 by Topaz

[Guest Derek L]

clearly... MLW member 'Derek L' (aka head cheerleader) downplayed the Dutch reduction as a reflection of "post-cold war restructuring". He now labels the Australia delay as no biggee... presuming to suggest they're not reducing requirements; however, apparently he can't read the linked article that states the delay is a "decision delay"... to buy or not to buy (re. rising costs and the ever burgeoning concerns over JSFail). But it gets better when MLW member 'Derek L' simply shrugs off the Italian reduction... another no biggee. Of course, as reflects the increasing F-35 costs associated with the U.S. itself reducing/delaying it's own purchases, each of these other JSFail partner nation decisions to delay/reduce, equally, have cost implications on the overall JSFail program scheduling/costs. But... apparently... no biggee to MLW member 'Derek L'!

as for Japan: the deal isn't signed... yet and... Japan's rising F-35 bill prompts questions for Canada (of course, expect a cheerleading response that suggests JSFail partnership has its privileges that partner countries "should" expect lower costs than Japan... ya, ya)

As I said prior, the Dutch haven’t stated the number of aircraft they would reduce their purchase by if there’s a reduction………In the your article the Australians are differing their purchase, like the Americans to spread out costs and the Italians are reducing their purchase of “B” version F-35s which is a direct reflection of their fiscal state and the reflection that they will retire one of their aircraft carriers without replacement.

Again, why are none of the partner nations cancelling their purchases in favour of a different type? Why did Japan decide on the F-35?

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently, the 'Cold War' is over.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/03/nato-missile-shield-will-be-met-with-pre-emptive-strikes-russia-warns/

[nittanylionstorm07]

Wrt Japan, to be fair, the DPJ made it a priority in their election planks to rebuild the JDF into a more well armed, better equipped military. With NK and China next door, this isn't surprising.

Now comparing Canada and Japan in this situation as if somehow they are in equal places is ridiculous beyond words.

[Guest Derek L]

Wrt Japan, to be fair, the DPJ made it a priority in their election planks to rebuild the JDF into a more well armed, better equipped military. With NK and China next door, this isn't surprising.

Now comparing Canada and Japan in this situation as if somehow they are in equal places is ridiculous beyond words.

How many combat deployments has the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force undertaken since 1945?

How many Japanese fought North Koreans and Chinese during the above mentioned timeframe contrasted with Canadians?

[bud]

i'm curious to know if any of the people who were part of the decision to purchase the planes would receive incentives.

[Topaz]

The head of NATO said that NATO countries do NOT need the same jet as McKay has said along. Since the F-35 has so many problems wouldn't it be better to have few different makes just in case, the F-35 turned up more problems after they were in the sky? http://www.canada.com/news/French+general+disputes+interoperability+argument/6561681/story.html

[Topaz]

Ther are many views out there and I think as Canadians we should have them all out there.One item the following articles deals with is that the F-35 is a war plane and there again there will be cost of lives and money if these jets are being bought to fight against the top four countries the West/NATO has a problem with. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30144

[waldo]

Apparently, the 'Cold War' is over.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/03/nato-missile-shield-will-be-met-with-pre-emptive-strikes-russia-warns/

Washington says the missile defence system, due to be completed in four phases by about 2020 and including interceptor missiles based in Poland and Romania,

is meant to counter a potential threat from Iran and presents no risk to Russia.

.

.

The Kremlin wants a legally binding guarantee the system will not be used against Russia.

The United States says it cannot agree to any formal limits on missile defence.

like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey?

[waldo]

even after it's recent RFI release, the U.S. Navy... still... refuses to formally advise it is dropping it's commitment to the JSFail F-35

Senior official raises F/A-XX doubts while retired USMC Generals question USN’s F-35 commitment

A senior US Department of Defense official is questioning how the US Navy will fund a next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Meanwhile, retired US Marine Corps flag-officers say that the USN's nascent F/A-XX effort demonstrates the service's lack of commitment to the carrier-variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

[Guest Derek L]

The head of NATO said that NATO countries do NOT need the same jet as McKay has said along. Since the F-35 has so many problems wouldn't it be better to have few different makes just in case, the F-35 turned up more problems after they were in the sky? http://www.canada.com/news/French+general+disputes+interoperability+argument/6561681/story.html

What was the name of the last French General that disputed NATO interoperability, and after said dispute saw the French retract from NATO? Had a big nose and was shaped like a pear……Was in charge of many of the French armoured formations in ‘40, and subsequently due to the lack of interoperability between the French (armed forces), Belgium’s and the BEF lost France……..What was his name again?

I would ask said current General two things though:

What does STANAG mean to him? He might be out of the loop since the French only formerly rejoined NATO back in ‘09.……

And, what is his future employment prospects like with Dassault?

[eyeball]

i'm curious to know if any of the people who were part of the decision to purchase the planes would receive incentives.

Well, they'll probably have to wait a few years until the door revolves their way but doesn't this go without saying?

[DogOnPorch]

like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey?

Russia hasn't changed THAT much. What's an R24 again?

[waldo]

What does STANAG mean to him? He might be out of the loop since the French only formerly rejoined NATO back in ‘09.……

link/cite the NATO STANAG that counters the comment of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation... that counters his comment concerning, 'interoperability and advocating for a single type of aircraft'.

[waldo]

Apparently, the 'Cold War' is over.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/03/nato-missile-shield-will-be-met-with-pre-emptive-strikes-russia-warns/

Washington says the missile defence system, due to be completed in four phases by about 2020 and including interceptor missiles based in Poland and Romania,

is meant to counter a potential threat from Iran and presents no risk to Russia.

.

.

The Kremlin wants a legally binding guarantee the system will not be used against Russia.

The United States says it cannot agree to any formal limits on missile defence.

like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey?

Russia hasn't changed THAT much. What's an R24 again?

what's the beef? If the U.S. openly states the "shield" is intended to thwart a... potential... threat from Iran, why would it object to Russia's expressed concerns? Why would the U.S. object to formally guaranteeing the "shield" won't be used against Russia? Hey now, what was that lil' ole Cuba thingee that the U.S. so objected to, hey? No "tit for tat" in the PorchDog house?

[DogOnPorch]

[/indent]

like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey?

what's the beef? If the U.S. openly states the "shield" is intended to thwart a... potential... threat from Iran, why would it object to Russia's expressed concerns? Why would the U.S. object to formally guaranteeing the "shield" won't be used against Russia? Hey now, what was that lil' ole Cuba thingee that the U.S. so objected to, hey? No "tit for tat" in the PorchDog house?

What's an RS24 Yar?

Edited May 4, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

What's an RS24 Yar?

why... that was Putin's response to the U.S. Bush admin's eastern European "missile defence shield"... the Pentagon's plans to site missile interceptors and radar shields in Poland/Czech Republic. U.S. aggression, apparently, has repercussions, hey?

[GostHacked]

What's an RS24 Yar?

And how does an F-35 compare to that?