F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

would that be the same article you disparage... the article from which you refuse to accept the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff? That article? You mean you now want to challenge the sorties number thingee... you want to advocate for the USMC... you want to actually challenge the words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff? Hey Mr. Wizard - this would mean you would actually have to accept the very words/statement you're so fixated on denying!!! Perfect... more gravy all around!

now, clearly, you want to reference that article to presume to distract away from actually discussing/acknowledging the very detailed JSFail F-35 criticisms put forward in regards to US GAO & Pentagon F-35 SAR reports? Clearly, distraction is your game!

Nah, I wouldn’t need to reference your article other than to refute it………The British and Marines have been operating STOVL and conventional aircraft for decades, and over such time, there has been numerous conflicts to illustrate the point in regards to the increase of sorties generated by a STOVL aircraft operated near the battlefield in austere conditions when contrasted with conventional types.

[Guest Derek L]

oh my! Pile on...

F-22's Oxygen Issues Raise Questions About F-35

Lockheed says F-22 problems won't plague F-35

A problem plaguing the breathing apparatus of the F-22 fighter jet should not affect pilot safety in the F-35, says Lockheed-Martin, which makes both planes.

[GostHacked]

So the big question I posted a couple pages back. I somehow knew it would get ignored. So here I will try it again.

How are we going to pay for these things? Where is the money coming from? If we cannot afford decent kit for the men and women sent to Afghanistan, how do we expect to pay for F-35? Our national debt is not getting smaller.

Maybe we can work out the other details later once we understand where the money is coming from that will pay for these planes. I' not like Canada saved up any money for a down payment type thing.

[Wild Bill]

How are we going to pay for these things? Where is the money coming from? If we cannot afford decent kit for the men and women sent to Afghanistan, how do we expect to pay for F-35? Our national debt is not getting smaller.

You're question is valid regardless, GH, but you do realize that we are not paying in one lump? That it's spread out over maybe 20 years?

Lockheed couldn't deliver in one lump and we wouldn't expect them too anyway.

[GostHacked]

You're question is valid regardless, GH, but you do realize that we are not paying in one lump? That it's spread out over maybe 20 years?

Again, where is that money coming from? If we cannot pay down our national debt, how can we continue to purchase things on credit? Sure we are going to pay over the years, but you must have some guaranteed excess income in order to pay for this. There is none of that here in Canada. Did we put some money aside for a rainy day?

Lockheed couldn't deliver in one lump and we wouldn't expect them too anyway.

I understand that.

[Wild Bill]

Again, where is that money coming from? If we cannot pay down our national debt, how can we continue to purchase things on credit? Sure we are going to pay over the years, but you must have some guaranteed excess income in order to pay for this. There is none of that here in Canada. Did we put some money aside for a rainy day?

I understand that.

Where does ANY of our money come from? If we don't have enough, then we need to re-examine our spending priorities. Does it make sense to assume that every dime we are currently spending is spent wisely and efficiently? That ALL programs have merit?

How about federal transfers? With the imbalance between what we give and what we get from Quebec, perhaps we should encourage them to separate! We could then no doubt easily afford the F-35s!

Sorry! I wasn't serious but I just couldn't resist! :lol:

[waldo]

Harper Conservatives - Sham Artists extraordinaire!

Feds confirm they’re shutting down Commons committee inquiry into F-35s

The federal government has confirmed it intends to shut down a Commons inquiry into allegations that Cabinet and the Department of National Defence withheld $10-billion worth of costs for the F-35 stealth fighter jet in the lead-up to the 2011 federal election.

NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) criticized Mr. Saxton’s statement in the Commons.

“After only a few hours of testimony, the Conservatives are set to shut down the inquiry, with only seven hours of investigation and nearly seven years of Conservative mismanagement,” Mr. Kellway said in Question Period.

Conservative Government Attempt To Shut Down F-35 Hearings Will Further Add to the Image of “Something To Hide” On the Program

“To shut this committee down is a scandal,” said Gerry Byrne, a Liberal MP on the public accounts committee. “It means the government is desperate to hide something.”

Expect this to be the media strategy for the opposition parties for the foreseeable future. The strategy is to highlight the secrecy around the F-35 purchase and the lack of information about the cost and other issues.

At DND the talk is that the Conservatives have given the opposition MPs another PR windfall on the F-35 file. There has been widespread disbelief that the poor communications strategy has allowed the purchase to become a major political issue. This latest move will not help the situation at all, say NDHQ insiders.

Edited May 29, 2012 by waldo

[cybercoma]

Two words: Airbus Affair.

[cybercoma]

Two words: Airbus Affair.

[TwoDucks]

Where does ANY of our money come from? If we don't have enough, then we need to re-examine our spending priorities. Does it make sense to assume that every dime we are currently spending is spent wisely and efficiently? That ALL programs have merit?

How about federal transfers? With the imbalance between what we give and what we get from Quebec, perhaps we should encourage them to separate! We could then no doubt easily afford the F-35s!

Sorry! I wasn't serious but I just couldn't resist! :lol:

So... you're saying with one of Canada's largest purchases ever, your best suggestion to fund it is to find money between the couch cushions?

[DogOnPorch]

So... you're saying with one of Canada's largest purchases ever, your best suggestion to fund it is to find money between the couch cushions?

Wild Bill: Sorry! I wasn't serious but I just couldn't resist!

[punked]

So... you're saying with one of Canada's largest purchases ever, your best suggestion to fund it is to find money between the couch cushions?

I think he is saying raise corporate taxes.

[waldo]

whaaa! $47K for an F-35... trucked in all the way from Texas!!! Can we get 64 more of those?

when does Peter "AirShow" MacKay... become Peter "PhotoOp" MacKay?

[cybercoma]

Mind you, this is the same government that said other options are still on the table.

"We have not signed any contract yet."

[waldo]

oh my!

F-35 production quality worries US Senate panel

* Senate committee questions production quality impact on price

* Potential critical issue with electronic warfare capabilities

* Scrap, rework and repair at Fort Worth plant troubling-report

* Concerns also about software development

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday questioned the quality of production on the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, citing a "potentially serious issue" with its electronic warfare capability.

"The committee is ... concerned about production quality and whether it is sufficient to ensure the delivery of JSF aircraft to the U.S. and its allies at an affordable price," the committee said in a report accompanying its fiscal 2013 defense budget bill.

The committee said it was troubled by the average rate of scrap, rework and repair at Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas facility from 2009 through the first two months of 2012, but gave no details.

"Inattention to production quality" had led to the discovery of a potentially serious issue with an aperture on the plane that was critical to its electronic warfare capability, the report said. The full extent of the problem was not known, but it underscored the need for the Pentagon and Lockheed to "rigorously manage production quality," it said.

The committee's report reiterated long-standing congressional concerns that Lockheed is already producing planes even as testing continues, which can lead to costly retrofits.

The most recent restructuring added 33 months and $7.9 billion to the development plan.

The report also cited concern about lack of progress on software development for the new aircraft, noting that "the potential cascading effect of failures to deliver software ... can be particularly pernicious."

[mentalfloss]

Tories were aware that the F-35 was completely unaffordable last year.

Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino weeks after the last federal election and obtained through Access to Information show he was warned billions of dollars in spending reductions had rendered the Canada First Defence Strategy impossible to fulfill.

Tories knew last year shopping list of military equipment was ‘unaffordable,’ documents show

[cybercoma]

Tories were aware that the F-35 was completely unaffordable last year.

Tories knew last year shopping list of military equipment was ‘unaffordable,’ documents show

Not just the F-35s. I mean, this story gets more ridiculous as time passes.

[Guest Derek L]

You think this news? I’ve been saying since last year when I joined here that current programs/spending under the current framework are unaffordable and in some cases, unwanted by DND (AOPS, Arctic bases etc).

Unfortunately we’ll have to wait till Fall to hear the slush breakers and Arctic training center won’t happen, and as I’ve been “predicting”, base closures.

[Wild Bill]

I think he is saying raise corporate taxes.

Punked, I would never say anything as dumb as that! Why would I suggest hitting ourselves over the head with a hammer?

To make ends meet, I recently took a part time job in a call centre. I sit in a cube farm all day and call businesses, asking for their help with various charity events.

After doing this for just over a month, I am scared witless for the Ontario economy!

The number of businesses that have gone under, are going under or are hanging on by their fingernails is unbelievable! Ontario is in bad shape. Worst are the ones having anything to do with manufacturing but the spinoff businesses are in the same boat, right down to body shops and service centres.

Some of the conversations I have had might even make YOU cry, Punked! These are not wicked, rich capitalists going bankrupt just to be pricks to their employees.These are guys who in some cases have run their family business for 30 years, only to see it shriveling up and dying.

One older gentleman today said he has not seen it this bad since the depression during Bob Rae's provincial term. Worse yet, things seem to be getting worse and not better.

I think this would merit a thread of its own in the provincial section. Several small factory owners told me that the cost of electricity is killing them. Their cost has more than doubled since McGuinty took over and also just keeps getting worse. They are already investigating leaving Ontario or just shutting down completely.

I don't get much time during a call to talk about these things and of course it's never a good idea to talk politics during a charity call but this is what I have been gleaning and as I said already, it's a scary window on the province's economy!

Raising corporate taxes in this environment frankly seems to be a suicidal move.

[waldo]

You think this news? I’ve been saying since last year when I joined here that current programs/spending under the current framework are unaffordable and in some cases, unwanted by DND (AOPS, Arctic bases etc).

Unfortunately we’ll have to wait till Fall to hear the slush breakers and Arctic training center won’t happen, and as I’ve been “predicting”, base closures.

it most certainly is news, to most. The general public has been spoon-fed a load of Harper Conservative hooey over military spending intentions, about Arctic sovereignty, about "first strike" capability (just don't call it "first strike"), etc.. The constant drumbeat of modernizing the military... painting the Harper Conservatives as the party to correct the past years of so-called "neglect".

but hey now, you say/predict no slush breakers... no Arctic training center... base closures!!! Just how will MLW member, 'Dog', cope and manage now that "Ivan" will have free reign!

so, if DND were given the choice... it's choice... what makes you think the JSFail F-35 would be prioritized over all else... over all the other described "must haves"?

[Guest Derek L]

it most certainly is news, to most. The general public has been spoon-fed a load of Harper Conservative hooey over military spending intentions, about Arctic sovereignty, about "first strike" capability (just don't call it "first strike"), etc.. The constant drumbeat of modernizing the military... painting the Harper Conservatives as the party to correct the past years of so-called "neglect".

but hey now, you say/predict no slush breakers... no Arctic training center... base closures!!! Just how will MLW member, 'Dog', cope and manage now that "Ivan" will have free reign!

so, if DND were given the choice... it's choice... what makes you think the JSFail F-35 would be prioritized over all else... over all the other described "must haves"?

No, I’ve had several discussions with smallc with regards to “arctic sovereignty” proposals, and as I mentioned numerous times to him, the navy doesn’t want and DND can’t afford, the current Government’s Arctic Sovereignty proposals…….25 years ago near the very same ideas and strategies were proposed (with the inclusion of nuclear submarines) and I would be extremely surprised if the AOPS are built or if they are built, at the expense of the surface fleet (the three 280s go without replacement) and/or Subs.

Same goes with bases, the DND would love to rid it self of the added expense of operating token bases kept open as a form of political largess……Proportionally we’re as bad as, if not worse then the Americans when it comes to keeping military bases of little utility open for political reasons.

What we truly need is another C.D. Howe to fix a procurement process that has been broken since St. Laurent and to ensure we get the most out of our current budget.

As to DND’s “choice”, it’s not a case of the F-35 versus everything else, but one of spending priorities made by DND, with said focus clearly shifting to both the Navy and Air Force based on their equipment needs due to age and condition of their current platforms. When one looks at in terms of fleet management, our current Hornets, Destroyers, Buffalo’s and Hercs (FWSAR) and the AOR’s (Navy supply ships) are decades older then the vast majority of army equipment and take priority over political flights of fancy.

[Army Guy]

it most certainly is news, to most. The general public has been spoon-fed a load of Harper Conservative hooey over military spending intentions, about Arctic sovereignty, about "first strike" capability (just don't call it "first strike"), etc.. The constant drumbeat of modernizing the military... painting the Harper Conservatives as the party to correct the past years of so-called "neglect".

Really, I find your claim that this is news to most Canadians hard to swallow..In fact most Canadians have asked this very question plenty of times, How are we going to afford all these purchases...Show us the Money....the figure of 480 bil over 20 years has been published many times....perhaps we have been distracted trying to swallow the price tag for new fighters...but that does negate that the cons have pushed this massive number out plenty of times...you have just choose to ingnore it.

And nobody even blinked...in fact we readily accept that well over 50 bil is being spent on Ship building...and yet you suggest that we can't add up all these projects on our own..we need to be spoon feed promises....To come to the same conclusion affording this spending is going to mean changes...instead we piont our fingers at the cons and scream, you failed to keep your promise, while in the back ground you've been fighting the cons tooth and nail for spending or upgrading our military period. And when the cons come to the same conclusion you start blaming them for not keeping their promises. Perhaps it's time we left the politics to the wing nuts and concerned ourselfs with educating our selfs on the the problems in our country..

As for painting the Cons as the saviors af our military, At least it is a major topic on their radar, wish i could say that for any past ruling party....unless you can prove other wise....In fact i remember a liberal party making huge plans, for the military once which included whacky things such as Nuk Subs, with all the fancy trimmings....those plans made it just past the election date....But atleast the Cons have started projects, even made good on some of them...

As for the SO CALLED years of neglect, if it takes 480 bil dollars to repair what do you call it...i mean very few new capabilites have been added in those purchases, most will be spent on just replacing or keeping capibilites we have now....if you ask me 480 Bil speaks for itself "Neglect" is a politically correct way for saying gutted....

so, if DND were given the choice... it's choice... what makes you think the JSFail F-35 would be prioritized over all else... over all the other described "must haves"?

DND has no choice, it follows orders given by our political masters, they make decissions based on public opinion, Canadians don't have enough time to make rational decisions, so they support what ever the media feeds them....DND makes recommendations , that are not always followed....

Whats Canadians should be asking about is how much do we value our security, do we really need a military, and what would i be willing to live without not to worry about security ever....

Instead today we place a value on a human life in terms of dollars instead of asking the right question of would i want my son or daughter to climb into this equipment and go to war....

[waldo]

Really, I find your claim that this is news to most Canadians hard to swallow..In fact most Canadians have asked this very question plenty of times, How are we going to afford all these purchases...Show us the Money

the affordability aspect is news to most... of the general public. Given your career, I expect you and your immediate circle are tuned in (obviously)... as is mine, including work mates, as I'm aware. Does the Harper Conservative base challenge anything that's trotted out? To the general public, the affordability aspect is about as well recognized as the modernization intent itself... it's not. Sure, the Harper Conservatives 'own goal' with the JSFail F-35 has raised "the jets" profile... but I seriously doubt most in the general public could lay out the other significant pieces of the modernization intent puzzle, let alone the associated costs... if you could believe the projected costs in the first place.

...instead we point our fingers at the cons and scream, you failed to keep your promise, while in the back ground you've been fighting the Cons tooth and nail for spending or upgrading our military period. And when the cons come to the same conclusion you start blaming them for not keeping their promises. Perhaps it's time we left the politics to the wing nuts and concerned ones self with educating ourselves on the the problems in our country..

if your "you've" in your, "you've been fighting the Cons tooth and nail for spending or upgrading our military period", is me personally... that's not correct. I've certainly been expressing my concerns over the JSFail; however, I many times have prioritized where I alternatively want that money directed throughout the military... in conjunction with the appropriate role(s) for the military.

DND has no choice, it follows orders given by our political masters, they make decisions based on public opinion, Canadians don't have enough time to make rational decisions, so they support what ever the media feeds them....DND makes recommendations , that are not always followed....

clearly DND hasn't a choice... which is why I prefaced and emphasized, "if given the choice... it's choice". What would be DND's prioritization list - if cuts were needed (cuts are, obviously, needed), what would be cut/trimmed... first?

Whats Canadians should be asking about is how much do we value our security, do we really need a military, and what would i be willing to live without not to worry about security ever....

Instead today we place a value on a human life in terms of dollars instead of asking the right question of would i want my son or daughter to climb into this equipment and go to war....

you mean a realistic assessment of security threats and related requirements... in conjunction with the appropriate roles for Canada's military? Unbiased assessments without the political/military jingoistic, chest-thumping rhetoric? Assessments that speak to real affordability balanced within the framework of all Canadian needs? You mean a realistic assessment that might actually challenge your, as you say, "climbing into the equipment and going to war"? That kind of assessment?

[waldo]

F-35 production quality worries US Senate panel

.

.

.

The committee's report reiterated long-standing congressional concerns that Lockheed is already producing planes even as testing continues, which can lead to costly retrofits.

The most recent restructuring added 33 months and $7.9 billion to the development plan.

further to... reading directly from the U.S. National Defense authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 report... as discussed in recent days questioning before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC):

Department of Defense (DOD) officials have testified that the F–35 "Lightning II" Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the most concurrent program in DOD recent experience. Concurrency refers to the overlap between system development and testing, and production. Excessive concurrency arises when a program’s development and production overlap to the extent that major, expensive changes identified in testing have to be made in production items after they are on the production line or after they are delivered.

According to JSF’s Program Executive Officer, "Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation... You’d like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we’re doing is, we’re taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, ‘Give me that jet back in the first year. I’ve got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don’t, we’re not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.’ That’s what concurrency is doing to us."

The Acting Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was considerably more pointed in his assessment, referring to the decision made years ago to put JSF into production before flight testing had started as "acquisition malpractice." He noted that the program was started with "the optimistic prediction that we were good enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find problems in flight test... That was wrong, and now we are paying for that."

The committee agrees with these appraisals and views them as a valuable starting point that may help ensure that the additional 33 months and $7.9 billion that DOD has added to the previous JSF development plan will result in a sustainable program capable of delivering the required capability to the warfighter. The committee remains concerned that, even with these changes, the level of concurrency risk that still resides in the program may be excessive.

Because of concern about the lack of a coherent concurrency change management strategy in the JSF program, the committee declined to approve DOD’s request to reprogram funds from other programs to cover part of a roughly $771.0 million cost overrun in low-rate initial production lots (LRIP) lots 1 through 3.

Unfortunately, the cost growth problem persists. As of March 2012, DOD estimates total concurrency costs for LRIP–1 at $50.1 million; LRIP–2, $300.3 million; LRIP–3, $319.1 million; and LRIP–4, $523.3 million. The committee does not find this trend encouraging and believes that the program must ensure that these costs are managed more effectively and that the prime contractor share equitably in them.

... "

Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation

... "

acquisition malpractice

."

... "

Unfortunately, the cost growth problem persists

"

the concurrency problem significantly amplified for early adopters, particularly those JSF highest tier partners who have chosen to purchase earlier phase 'production' jets... if only for self-testing/evaluation purposes in order to help ascertain full intentions and timelines therein. Is it any wonder, countries are now outright delaying and/or reducing earlier purchase commitment levels?

[Army Guy]

the affordability aspect is news to most... of the general public. Given your career, I expect you and your immediate circle are tuned in (obviously)... as is mine, including work mates, as I'm aware.

Does the Harper Conservative base challenge anything that's trotted out? To the general public, the affordability aspect is about as well recognized as the modernization intent itself...

The Media is full of examples of the new Purcurement projects that have been brought forward and made public, including the new ships, new fighters, new Amry vehs, etc in all the touted price tag of over 490 bil over 20 years is not news at all, In fact many Canadians have been asking How,when,and why these projects are needed...and i agree that explaining these projects to the general public has been a major fail on DND's and the governments side of the house, but i also place the blame on the lack of concern by the general public to get concerned...yes the new fighter program has gather alot of interest, but this is just a small portion of the 490 bil that really need to be looked at.

And when we take a look at each program we find that the numbers of equipment are really very small, infact most projects are not to replace capabilities we have on a one for one basis but rather much smaller than we had before, fighters one example, new ships another. Army equipment another...

but I seriously doubt most in the general public could lay out the other significant pieces of the modernization intent puzzle, let alone the associated costs... if you could believe the projected costs in the first place.

And this is just my opinion that our Military has never been a priority,for any thing, infact it is usally a major source of cut backs, so other things can be funded....atleast in the last 30 years. That and the fact there is just no interest in the general public to see our military modernized or anything else.

But really as fast as these projects have been announced they have been put on the back burner, delayed or canceled all together...All due to lack of funding...and most military members, along with interested General public members we all get it...

But sooner or later Canada is going to have to make these minimum investments in our military or make some harder decisions on what we want to keep, or pass on to another nation. And when i say minimum, we are really talking about the bare bones minimum, i mean really 65 jets, 100 tanks, these numbers we embarassing for a nation of our size, and standing within the G-8.

My link

I've certainly been expressing my concerns over the JSFail; however, I many times have prioritized where I alternatively want that money directed throughout the military... in conjunction with the appropriate role(s) for the military.

Concerns over any military project should be discussed, and Our government should be crystal clear on the intent, and the military needs to stay out of political events as much as possiable. That being said the whole process needs to be looked at like i've said what is our role, what is expected, but as far is what equipment is needed to cover these tasks that should remain a miliraty decision....

clearly DND hasn't a choice... which is why I prefaced and emphasized, "if given the choice... it's choice". What would be DND's prioritization list - if cuts were needed (cuts are, obviously, needed), what would be cut/trimmed... first?

It's my opinion that the Canadian public needs to decide what roles DND is to have, DND should brief the government on the different roles and their costs, then some hard decisions should be made , regardless of affordability..instead of pretending and faking that we can do it all......making plans then canceling them...promising those men and women that have alreay commited their lives and time to serving this nation with a realistic plan and realistic promises so they can make up their own minds to stay or go...

you mean a realistic assessment of security threats and related requirements... in conjunction with the appropriate roles for Canada's military? Unbiased assessments without the political/military jingoistic, chest-thumping rhetoric? Assessments that speak to real affordability balanced within the framework of all Canadian needs? You mean a realistic assessment that might actually challenge your, as you say, "climbing into the equipment and going to war"? That kind of assessment?[/quote

I do mean realistic assements of security threats , but not by general public members who may or may not be aware of the everydya threats. but rather our elected government...The role of the Military should be debated by all Canadians, and once again tough decisions made, be it popular or unpopular....then the proper funding alotted affordable or not...as for chest thumping while it may seem that to you or other general public, What equipment is chosen is not a public decision, nor should it be a government offical chose...funding for said projects yes debate all you want, but what equipment is chosen is a military decision, that miliraty personal will end up climbing into and risking their lives in the end...getting 140 f-18 e/f or 65 f-35 fighters is or should be a military chose.

As for

You mean a realistic assessment that might actually challenge your, as you say, "climbing into the equipment and going to war"? That kind of assessment

We have been living with these very types of decisions for ever, and it is not until the military has paid for these decisions with lives, that the public come on our side....lets not forget the iltis, LSVW, MLVW, and HLVW chose to have these vehs in Afghanistan, or getting tanks there as well , there are countless of other choses as well....And when you combine these , with our less than steller proformance in purcurement, not to mention how long we actually keep equipment thats long gone to the dogs, a perfect example of this is our Leo tanks which have still not replaced our older designs...only a few of the new Leo IIA4 designs have been delivered for training and today those new A6 models have been returned back to Germany,while in the mean time we still are using the Original tanks we purchased...even 3 rd world countries have updated there equipment....

And i would agree with you if the general public actually gave a shit, but replacing a tank is not a 15 year process, nor is keeping them for 30 or more years...Nor is agreeing that we should only buy 100 of these then when broken down, having a brigade with only 15 of these tanks ...is actually quit sad...So while climnbing into the best equipment is a good chose today 30 years from now will be well Fu****ed.