F-35 Purchase

[jacee]

No, that CBC article is wrong. The $9B includes the cost of the planes, the cost of the related infrastructure (new hangars, etc), and the cost of the weapons and initial spare parts.

Previously you said a recent CBC article was correct and a Postmedia story was wrong, and now you say this past CBC story is wrong..

Tell me smallc ... where are you getting such reliable information that you are so certain what is and is not correct?

You must be the only Canadian with such information.

Share your sources please.

You can't just expect us to believe what you say with no data.

And I'm curious ... why do you think Harper refuses to clarify the information to the public? It would seem politic for him to do so, and he's not a stupid man.

Perhaps it's true the Tories are imploding?

I know I'm certainly looking forward to the time when his MP's start deserting his sinking ship. Hubris might allow you to skim on the surface for a short time, but it's not a good personal flotation device.

I do believe there are some Tory MP's with integrity who will soon turn their backs on Harper, and others who will run from the bad PR.

I can't imagine being a Tory MP and not demanding a full and clear explanation of these costs for your constituents.

I can imagine Harper continuing to play games, thinking he's 'getting the better of the opposition and the media: He seems to think that only such strategy games matter.

He has no sense of himself as a 'leader' of all Canadians whatsoever.

I think the truth is that Stephen Harper is only in it for the competitive strategy games. He has no clue how to lead a country, and only contempt for most citizens.

[Signals.Cpl]

the Cpl!!! ya, the guy gets a bit testy... doesn't take well to challenge/criticism one little bit.

waldo the poor guy doesn't take well to facts one little bit.

[Guest Derek L]

Thats why we need something binding from one government to another government.

I agree with your sentiment (the ‘93 election results directly effected my trade) but that would clearly kneecap a future government if world events and/or Canada’s envisioned role(s) changed……..Honestly, after the Wall fell, did we really need 12 nuke boats or a poly Division in Germany?

[waldo]

waldo the poor guy doesn't take well to facts one little bit.

you're a hoot! I already gave you a double replay on the reeediculous scenario needed to support your fabricated strawman "facts" Your imagined reality is as mendacious as your self-aggrandized "facts"!

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS? It's really a shame Russia isn't playing into your fabricated boogeyman scenario, hey?

Your "reality" ignores everything Russia is actively doing to align with international law, while at the same time playing out your agenda that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russia claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

[capricorn]

Thats why we need something binding from one government to another government.

Short of legislation, I doubt it can be done.

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree with your sentiment (the ‘93 election results directly effected my trade) but that would clearly kneecap a future government if world events and/or Canada’s envisioned role(s) changed……..Honestly, after the Wall fell, did we really need 12 nuke boats or a poly Division in Germany?

I understand that, and it should be open to change when events force change. The idea would be to prevent the save a penny waste a dollar approach to defence. Prevent cuts to the military to save money now and let someone else worry about it 10 years in the future when the cost drastically increase. If there is no requirement for a particular asset, and there is no reason to assume it will be required anytime in the future then by all means cut it out.

Do we need super carriers? No

Could we use Amphibious Assault ships? Yes

Is it desperately needed? Maybe

[Signals.Cpl]

Short of legislation, I doubt it can be done.

Well we need to find a way, otherwise we will repeat the negative cycle over and over and waste money.

[Guest Derek L]

I understand that, and it should be open to change when events force change. The idea would be to prevent the save a penny waste a dollar approach to defence. Prevent cuts to the military to save money now and let someone else worry about it 10 years in the future when the cost drastically increase. If there is no requirement for a particular asset, and there is no reason to assume it will be required anytime in the future then by all means cut it out.

Do we need super carriers? No

Could we use Amphibious Assault ships? Yes

Is it desperately needed? Maybe

But that in of itself is not realistic with Canadian Defence procurement……..politics trumps requirements, sad but true…….the MHP started well I was still in RRMC, my daughter is going to RMC this fall with the possibility that when she graduates, and completes flight training, there still could be Sea Things flying that entered service well my father was flying Trackers off the Bonnie……

I think you give Government (PC/LPC/CPC) and the Mandarins in the puzzle factory too much credit.

[Signals.Cpl]

But that in of itself is not realistic with Canadian Defence procurement……..politics trumps requirements, sad but true…….the MHP started well I was still in RRMC, my daughter is going to RMC this fall with the possibility that when she graduates, and completes flight training, there still could be Sea Things flying that entered service well my father was flying Trackers off the Bonnie……

I think you give Government (PC/LPC/CPC) and the Mandarins in the puzzle factory too much credit.

I think you are right, but my hope is that when it comes to something so important as Defence we should have at the very least a binding agreement for the most basic level so that we know we have the means to do our job and whatever a government decides to purchase above and beyond that is up to them. In Whose War is it? Mr Granatstein presented a scenario about an earthquake along the west coast of North America and the short comings in equipment that the CF has and the problem that would be present. Unfortunately when people die, the politicians who played games with DND's budget will not be held to account for their actions.

[Guest Derek L]

I think you are right, but my hope is that when it comes to something so important as Defence we should have at the very least a binding agreement for the most basic level so that we know we have the means to do our job and whatever a government decides to purchase above and beyond that is up to them. In Whose War is it? Mr Granatstein presented a scenario about an earthquake along the west coast of North America and the short comings in equipment that the CF has and the problem that would be present. Unfortunately when people die, the politicians who played games with DND's budget will not be held to account for their actions.

I read the book, live on the Left Coast and spent my remaining time as a class “C” (via the BC solicitor General’s office) working on scenario’s associated with Federal and Provincial emergency preparedness relating to the “Big One” hitting out West……..All I will say is that it shouldn’t be as bad as Katrina and thank god for the Washington State National Guard.

[eyeball]

Seems to be relevent to me. I pay insurance every year, have for along time, even though I've never used it, and quite likely never will. Hell, I even have earthquake insurance. By your way of figuring things I should get rid of insurance. Since I haven't needed it in the past I CLEARLY won't have any need of it in the future either.

We possess fissionable enriched uranium, that's all the insurance anyone needs now.

[eyeball]

I see. But no one has claimed Russia is 'presently engaging' us. Is it then your contention that if we find a need in say ten years for fighter jets we can just go to Wal-Mart and buy them off the shelf, along with the pilots to fly them and the bases to operate them from?

No, you lease them.

[punked]

No, you lease them.

If Russia wanted to walk into Canada it could. It could never hold Canada and fighter jets aren't stopping the Russian army if they want to invade us. They have 20,000,000 reserves or half the population of Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

If Russia wanted to walk into Canada it could. It could never hold Canada and fighter jets aren't stopping the Russian army if they want to invade us. They have 20,000,000 reserves or half the population of Canada.

How would the Russian's "walk into Canada"?

[cybercoma]

How would the Russian's "walk into Canada"?

Snowshoes and thick winter coats.

[eyeball]

How would the Russian's "walk into Canada"?

Well, they'd be able walk from the colonies they're apparently threatening to establish on Ellsmereski Island for example.

[Guest Derek L]

Snowshoes and thick winter coats.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, they'd be able walk from the colonies they're apparently threatening to establish on Ellsmereski Island for example.

I see.......

[Signals.Cpl]

If Russia wanted to walk into Canada it could. It could never hold Canada and fighter jets aren't stopping the Russian army if they want to invade us. They have 20,000,000 reserves or half the population of Canada.

And North Korea has 8million reserves yet I can't see them being capable of doing much. Russian reserves have in some cases not served in 20 or more years, and the argument is not wether they can invade us, but if we can prove to the world we are independent and capable of defending ourselves. We can expect the US to assist in our defence but should be able to field our own military. What does it look like if every time we have a Russian exercise in or near our Airspace we have to run to the US to send fighters in order to show the Russians the door? The US military is not running a charity program for countries not willing to invest in their own defence.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, they'd be able walk from the colonies they're apparently threatening to establish on Ellsmereski Island for example.

Why would they invade us if they have the territory in question? They aren't threatening to invade Canada, just the valuable parts up north that they are contesting.

[Guest Derek L]

And North Korea has 8million reserves yet I can't see them being capable of doing much. Russian reserves have in some cases not served in 20 or more years, and the argument is not wether they can invade us, but if we can prove to the world we are independent and capable of defending ourselves. We can expect the US to assist in our defence but should be able to field our own military. What does it look like if every time we have a Russian exercise in or near our Airspace we have to run to the US to send fighters in order to show the Russians the door? The US military is not running a charity program for countries not willing to invest in their own defence.

That’s the point of your argument as I understand it, in that we don’t have to worry about Russians sneaking across the Tundra with snow shoes nor some other foreign power negatively effecting or influencing our interests abroad since we are a signatory of such defence treaties as NATO and NORAD.

Now with membership in these “clubs”, we have to provide something towards the collective (I put that there for our more progressive members) defence of each nation(s), both inherent sovereignty and interests abroad. In the last ~60 years consecutive Government’s of Canada have demonstrated this (to varying degrees of effectiveness) with their willingness to deploy members of the Canadian Forces, from all elements, on international missions, be they enforcing sanctions, Peacekeeping, the defence of Western Europe, Peacemaking and war. Clearly this demonstrates a requirement for a balanced armed forces if we wish to continue this past legacy.

If we don’t wish to be a international participant, then clearly based on potential threats to Canadian sovereignty, we could afford leaving such alliances and drastically reducing the size and scope of our armed forces……..It’s quite obvious, the American’s have interests in Canada, and if required, would defend us on their terms…….

Some would say, this is the natural progression towards a proper North American union.

[eyeball]

I see.......

That's what I heard - apparently we need these planes to deter Russians from setting up oil rigs on our Arctic land claims.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's what I heard - apparently we need these planes to deter Russians from setting up oil rigs on our Arctic land claims.

No, the Russian soldiers were always deterred by Canada's Gun Registry.

[PIK]

Back to the purchase... when the price started to go up, the Tories should have put things on hold and gone for an open tender bid, just to see what is out there. By doing this, it could have ended the long draw out debates in the House. there has to be other jets out there because some of the countries that were going to buy the F-35 are buying them like the jet from France. So the Tories need to start this process and if one isn't found than the F-35 is the one , IF IT can pass all requirements and if it can't we go to the second best. BTW, one journalist on Tv said that why the military want this F-35 because they think down the road NA may be at war with China??? Really??

Of course there is other jets and mostr are having problems of thier own. We need the best of everything, who knows what is instore for this country when gas and water become hard to get for the rest of the world or even land. Nobody should ever let their guard down, that only gives someone like hitler a chance to do something..

[mentalfloss]

Now Mackay is saying it's an accounting issue?

Not enough facepalm.