F-35 Purchase

[Smallc]

closed bid?

There was no one else who had a fifth generation fighter to bid. In the absence of a fifth generation competitor, then the 4.5th generation fighters would be competitive with each other, if not with the F-35.

[waldo]

BTW I am not saying I want to be Iceland and have no military. I am just pointing out there are places very close to us who have no military so talking of a military we can afford instead of the one we want is a conversation we can have.

had a recent look at Mexico... you know, one of 'three amigos'... that country of about 120 million. They certainly seem to be invested in transport aircraft, transport/combat helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft and are even into a bit of UAV... oh, and apparently they have about a dozen or so antiquated F-5 fighters (that other countries now use as "trainers"). Different priorities I guess, hey?

[waldo]

There was no one else who had a fifth generation fighter to bid. In the absence of a fifth generation competitor, then the 4.5th generation fighters would be competitive with each other, if not with the F-35.

way to keep up the broken record routine - cause, like... in 2010 there weren't other choices?... apparently not, particularly when DND skews the "requirements" in favour of the F-35?

[Jack Weber]

way to keep up the broken record routine - cause, like... in 2010 there weren't other choices?... apparently not, particularly when DND skews the "requirements" in favour of the F-35?

The whole thing seems to have been rigged from that outset...

I'm now wondering if what John Iveson said on Question Period this morning is more than a bit salient...

He said that,although no one is talking about it,it's quite possible that Canada,the US,Japan,Australia,and I suppose,Taiwan...May have got together and have come to the conclusion that this is the plane necessary to maintain air superiority in the Pacific with a rising China.And that's the point where DND started the process from...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

had a recent look at Mexico... you know, one of 'three amigos'... that country of about 120 million. They certainly seem to be invested in transport aircraft, transport/combat helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft and are even into a bit of UAV... oh, and apparently they have about a dozen or so antiquated F-5 fighters (that other countries now use as "trainers"). Different priorities I guess, hey?

The F-35 should be viewed as a hanger queen until further notice. This aircraft does not meet its own flight envelope. It does not meet the standards the company was contracted for. Notwithstanding our own investment in the program, which is about 777 million dollars, we still have not signed an agreement to purchase the aircraft. Anyone wonder how we can afford to dump three quarters of a billion dollars on a business plan to build fighter jets? Some folks want to argue about this cost or that cost, they want to argue about who said what and when. The truth is the one thing nobody is talking about.

[Signals.Cpl]

had a recent look at Mexico... you know, one of 'three amigos'... that country of about 120 million. They certainly seem to be invested in transport aircraft, transport/combat helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft and are even into a bit of UAV... oh, and apparently they have about a dozen or so antiquated F-5 fighters (that other countries now use as "trainers"). Different priorities I guess, hey?

Unless you are planning on involving Canada in Mexico's borderline civil war, damn straight we have different priorities,

[Smallc]

way to keep up the broken record routine - cause, like... in 2010 there weren't other choices?

Fifth generation fighters? No.

[Signals.Cpl]

way to keep up the broken record routine - cause, like... in 2010 there weren't other choices?... apparently not, particularly when DND skews the "requirements" in favour of the F-35?

You mean the DND did not ask you what Canada requires in a jet? Wow such an oversight. DND says what they need, Government looks says well this is what we got to offer take it or leave it. The requirements are just that, requirements they can be changed if you change the mission requirements.

[Signals.Cpl]

The truth is the one thing nobody is talking about.

Which is?

[capricorn]

I don't think anyone in the House was the least bit shocked. I think they're very good at phony self-righteous indignation. They ought to be actors on a reality TV show... Wait, they are!

Canadians viewing QP in the House are very well aware of the bad acting put on with the Fools on the Hill. It's more a comedy routine than a source of information. Move over Rick Mercer.

[capricorn]

I'm now wondering if what John Iveson said on Question Period this morning is more than a bit salient...

He said that,although no one is talking about it,it's quite possible that Canada,the US,Japan,Australia,and I suppose,Taiwan...May have got together and have come to the conclusion that this is the plane necessary to maintain air superiority in the Pacific with a rising China.And that's the point where DND started the process from...

Ivison also figures that once the F-35 was pegged as the best, DND (and one must assume those other countries too} worked backward from that point on.

[Jack Weber]

Ivison also figures that once the F-35 was pegged as the best, DND (and one must assume those other countries too} worked backward from that point on.

Right...

But this seems to have hamstrung the government on things like cost because they couldn't come out and say "We're trying to get ahead of the Chinese in the Pacific"...

Now there seem to be huge cost overruns and the governemnt probably knew this all along...

Certainly DND,Mr.MacKay's department,knew full well...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Which is?

Which is what? I did say that NOBODY was talking about the truth. Not me, not you, nor anyone else is talking about the truth here. The reason for it is simply the lack of transparency within the process. Nobody knows how this will play put. I will suggest that in truth we NEED NEW aircraft. It is going to be expensive no matter what aircraft we choose. The tax payer is paying for the whole show and they just want some answers. To that end, many questions are being asked, my questions are like everyone else. How much is this going to cost me? The government had two sets of numbers, they low balled it and were caught in the act. They have been called, and have started to do their little victory dance. That victory comes at the expense of Canadian tax paying citizens.

[waldo]

had a recent look at Mexico... you know, one of 'three amigos'... that country of about 120 million. They certainly seem to be invested in transport aircraft, transport/combat helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft and are even into a bit of UAV... oh, and apparently they have about a dozen or so antiquated F-5 fighters (that other countries now use as "trainers"). Different priorities I guess, hey?

Unless you are planning on involving Canada in Mexico's borderline civil war, damn straight we have different priorities,

borderline civil war? Nice hyperbole. You were all about emphasizing "defense requirements"... I would think you should be able to offer some parallels between Mexico and Canada... something about sharing a common neighbour might have some consideration, hey?. But hey now, there's Mexico with a population 4 times that of Canada, a GDP ranking just a couple of spots lower than Canada... Mexico spends about a 1/5 of what Canada does on military expenditures. And those different priorities you speak of (rather, you don't speak of) would be... what?

[Signals.Cpl]

Which is what? I did say that NOBODY was talking about the truth. Not me, not you, nor anyone else is talking about the truth here. The reason for it is simply the lack of transparency within the process. Nobody knows how this will play put. I will suggest that in truth we NEED NEW aircraft. It is going to be expensive no matter what aircraft we choose. The tax payer is paying for the whole show and they just want some answers. To that end, many questions are being asked, my questions are like everyone else. How much is this going to cost me? The government had two sets of numbers, they low balled it and were caught in the act. They have been called, and have started to do their little victory dance. That victory comes at the expense of Canadian tax paying citizens.

The government of Canada gives a budget to the DND, in the budget they pay for the operational costs of all aircraft and the salaries of the Crews. The government did not present the 25 billion dollar figure because it was stupid. If we start purchasing vehicles and including the salary of the drivers/operators then the cost will be disproportionate. The AG report makes it seem that the 11 billion dollars is attached to the cost of the aircraft, but its not its attached to the cost of ANY aircraft we get. As I said, from now on if we use this criteria to estimate the cost, then the 1000 trucks we get will cost over 6 billion dollars more because of the drivers, and the three uniforms that the drivers have will cost 15 billion dollars because we have to count the drivers salary 3 times, once for each uniform. What about the 5 pairs of socks? or the 1L Canteen? seeing as everyone in he military get 3 uniforms, and 1 canteen then when we purchased the uniforms we should have accounted for the salary of all the CF members because they would be wearing them thus that would mean the we will assume the uniforms will last for 20 years, 20 years times 10billion dollars a year equals 20billion dollars in uniforms.

[waldo]

You mean the DND did not ask you what Canada requires in a jet? Wow such an oversight. DND says what they need, Government looks says well this is what we got to offer take it or leave it. The requirements are just that, requirements they can be changed if you change the mission requirements.

no - DND was so invested in JSF that it blinded itself to any other considerations; i.e., the purposeful DND "requirements skew". Apparently you don't understand that joining JSF wasn't an obligation, wasn't a commitment to the F-35.

[Signals.Cpl]

no - DND was so invested in JSF that it blinded itself to any other considerations; i.e., the purposeful DND "requirements skew". Apparently you don't understand that joining JSF wasn't an obligation, wasn't a commitment to the F-35.

no, I understand the the job of the people who determine what the Military needs is to decide what it will be used for, once that becomes clear then the requirements are written up. The military gets screwed when make every little purchase all about politics. I don't think it would be any different if the Liberals had decided to buy the F-35's the only thing would be that the roles would be switched. I support what the military needs to protect Canada, I couldn't care less who presented it and why. The ignorant people who are here arguing the government(Conservatives) lied to them, would be arguing that the AG report is misleading if it were the Liberals in power rather then the Conservatives. And if the NDP were in power, I am pretty sure we can kiss the military goodbye right along with our independence from the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

... But hey now, there's Mexico with a population 4 times that of Canada, a GDP ranking just a couple of spots lower than Canada... Mexico spends about a 1/5 of what Canada does on military expenditures. And those different priorities you speak of (rather, you don't speak of) would be... what?

Obviously, Mexico is not a NATO/NORAD partner, and doesn't invade or bomb other nations on "peacekilling" missions. Mexico doesn't have to defend global interests in mining and oil services contracts either. Ironically, Mexico is far more "peaceful" from an international perspective. ¿Comprende?

[capricorn]

As I said, from now on if we use this criteria to estimate the cost, then the 1000 trucks we get will cost over 6 billion dollars more because of the drivers, and the three uniforms that the drivers have will cost 15 billion dollars because we have to count the drivers salary 3 times, once for each uniform.

And fer gawd's sake, be sure to add 20 to 25% for the drivers' benefits costs cause fer sure the opposition would notice you purposely understated your human resources expenditures.

[bleeding heart]

And if the NDP were in power, I am pretty sure we can kiss the military goodbye right along with our independence from the US.

My, how times have changed.

Now we're hearing dire warnings about the scary, domineering USA....if the NDP gets into power!

[waldo]

no - DND was so invested in JSF that it blinded itself to any other considerations; i.e., the purposeful DND "requirements skew". Apparently you don't understand that joining JSF wasn't an obligation, wasn't a commitment to the F-35.

no, I understand the the job of the people who determine what the Military needs is to decide what it will be used for, once that becomes clear then the requirements are written up. The military gets screwed when make every little purchase all about politics.

there isn't a straight-line between the military and Parliament... not sure why you choose to undercut the DND presence/role. In any case, government policy sets government budget, government budget sets/adjusts military requirements. In this F-35 case, apparently... we had the military skewing requirements separate from any steering and/or over-riding budget/policy.

Auditor General's Report:

We also have significant concerns about the completeness of cost information provided to parliamentarians.

In March 2011, National Defence responded publicly to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. This response did not include estimated operating, personnel, or ongoing training costs. Also, we observed that National Defence told parliamentarians that cost data provided by US authorities had been validated by US experts and partner countries, which was not accurate at the time. At the time of its response, National Defence knew the costs were likely to increase but did not so inform parliamentarians.

[waldo]

oh my! Just what might the ultimate costs be???

Auditor General's Report:

United States’ estimates of the future purchase price of the F-35 are in flux. Estimates for sustainment costs are not fully developed. Although the budgets established for the acquisition (CAN$9 billion) and for operations and sustainment (CAN$16 billion) include provision for contingency, there is a risk that these budgets may not be sufficient.

We have a number of observations regarding the life-cycle costing for the F-35. First, costs have not been fully presented in relation to the life of the aircraft. The estimated life expectancy of the F-35 is about 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. National Defence plans to operate the fleet for at least that long. It is able to estimate costs over 36 years. We recognize that long-term estimates are highly sensitive to assumptions about future costs as well as to currency exchange rates. However, in presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years. This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft’s estimated life expectancy. The JSF Program Office provided National Defence with projected sustainment costs over 36 years.

Second, the following expected costs were not accounted for:

-

Replacement aircraft

. National Defence considers 65 aircraft the minimum number needed to meet its training and operational requirements. Based on past experience, National Defence expects to lose aircraft in the course of normal usage. Based on National Defence’s assumed attrition rate, in order to maintain the fleet of 65 aircraft, Canada may need to purchase up to 14 additional aircraft over the next 36 years.

National Defence did inform the government of the need to consider the requirement for attrition aircraft at a later date. The cost of replacement aircraft is not included in the life-cycle estimate for this project and will be treated as a separate project in the future.

-

Upgrades

. It is expected that over the life of the aircraft, Canada will need to invest in various upgrades to the F-35 fleet, both in software and hardware. These costs were not known when the 2008 and 2010 budgets were established, but

have since been estimated to be more than CAN$1.2 billion

over 20 years.

-

Weapons

. National Defence has currently allocated enough weapons for an initial stockpile to last for 45 days of conflict operations. National Defence assumes that it will use existing weapons from the CF-18s to fulfill some of its needs. It will absorb future weapons purchases from its operating budget, and the purchase of new weapons during the fleet’s life cycle will be addressed through future acquisition projects.

Third, many costs are not yet reliably known or cannot yet be estimated. These include the basic unit recurring flyaway cost of the aircraft, the cost of Canadian required modifications, and the cost of sustainment. In addition, National Defence is still developing its planning assumptions for operating the fleet. This involves hundreds of interrelated decisions about such matters as how pilot and technician training will be delivered, what physical infrastructure is required and what portion is directly attributable to the F-35, how maintenance and repair activities will be supported, and what they will cost. National Defence currently assumes that average annual maintenance and repair costs for the F-35 fleet will be the same as for the CF-18 fleet. At the time of this audit, the project had not yet entered the formal Project Definition Phase, when many of these decisions will be taken and the cost implications will be better known. Consequently, estimates of the full life-cycle costs for the F-35 will likely change as the basis for the estimates becomes firmer.

Also unknown are the cost implications if further delays in the delivery of the F-35 require National Defence to make significant investments to extend the operation and life of the CF-18 fleet.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think folks are little confused. They should not be, its the function of the Canadian Government to explain the things it does. In this particular case, the AG was responsible to undertake a forensic audit of government books. It does this every year, and in fact the government can direct the AG to do pretty much as it pleases. After all the AG is a government servant.

Moving on to the media fiasco of the day, the AG report appears to place the government in a bad light. The report clearly states that the government did not provide an accurate accounting of funds allocated toward the F-35 project. The 2012 budget for DND has a little 3.5 billion dollar nest egg, that is not specifically spoken for. In any language this is a slush fund. Pretty big slush fund at that. Now considering that we already spent more than 750 million dollars on an aircraft that we have yet to commit to buying, the public is beginning to get more curious, and so is the media. As they tell us to tighten our belts, there is a recession don't you know, they carry a slush fund on their books. Go figure!

There is much hype right now and little substance. My suggestion would be for everyone to take two steps back and start over. Without a formal new national defense strategy, we are swinging wild and hitting nothing. We mix politics with national defense and we have problems. Then we are surprised, not very smart is it?

Why not stand up in the House of Commons and announce a bill to "study" the nations armed forces and our national defense strategy. Is it to much to ask the federal government to round up and hire as many people as it would need to provide the citizens with a comprehensive National Defense Plan.

Currently we are at each others throats till the cows come home. The need for leadership is upon us.

[Signals.Cpl]

My, how times have changed.

Now we're hearing dire warnings about the scary, domineering USA....if the NDP gets into power!

When Canada fails to meet its obligation to defend North America and itself, while expecting that the US should and would defend North America in General and Canada in Particular, they can rightfully decide, that if they are to defend us, might as well take them.

There is a book, now I know you dont like reading, but well its a very good book that follows the downfall of the military from the end of world war 2 till the midpoint of the Afghan mission. The author makes the point that the US care about their security and since we are a key piece in their security since we are their ally and neighbour they want us to take our share of defending the continent.Over the last 60 years, Canada has maintained just enough military strength to be able to say see we can defend ourselves we take this seriously, while not enough to actually satisfy the US, and definitely not enough to satisfy the Needs of Canada, or the responsibilities that the Government tends to sign us up for. If the US deems that Canada is not taking its defence seriously and is expecting American protection without pulling its weight, the US can rightly take over Canada's defence, and dictate to us how the continent will be defended rather then take us as a partner.

A lot of people think, whenever we are in trouble the US will protect us, but then we don't invest in our own defence to show the US we are serious, and badmouth them on a regular basis. And what happens if the US is just as busy with protecting their own citizens, wether its from a foreign invasion, or a natural disaster.

[Signals.Cpl]

I think folks are little confused. They should not be, its the function of the Canadian Government to explain the things it does. In this particular case, the AG was responsible to undertake a forensic audit of government books. It does this every year, and in fact the government can direct the AG to do pretty much as it pleases. After all the AG is a government servant.

Moving on to the media fiasco of the day, the AG report appears to place the government in a bad light. The report clearly states that the government did not provide an accurate accounting of funds allocated toward the F-35 project. The 2012 budget for DND has a little 3.5 billion dollar nest egg, that is not specifically spoken for. In any language this is a slush fund. Pretty big slush fund at that. Now considering that we already spent more than 750 million dollars on an aircraft that we have yet to commit to buying, the public is beginning to get more curious, and so is the media. As they tell us to tighten our belts, there is a recession don't you know, they carry a slush fund on their books. Go figure!

There is much hype right now and little substance. My suggestion would be for everyone to take two steps back and start over. Without a formal new national defense strategy, we are swinging wild and hitting nothing. We mix politics with national defense and we have problems. Then we are surprised, not very smart is it?

Why not stand up in the House of Commons and announce a bill to "study" the nations armed forces and our national defense strategy. Is it to much to ask the federal government to round up and hire as many people as it would need to provide the citizens with a comprehensive National Defense Plan.

Currently we are at each others throats till the cows come home. The need for leadership is upon us.

I am 100% behind you on this one, the government including all representatives regardless of party, should come together and decide what we expect of the military and then ask the military to tell us what they need to meet our requirements.

The 3.5billion dollars that you speak of I would assume is for unforeseen missions or deployments eg. Haiti, disaster response in Canada etc. I believe there is a portion of the budget that is used for that, not sure if its the money you are referring to.