F-35 Purchase

Argus · April 8, 2012

If parliament asks the government to include those costs then yes they better damn well include those costs. A democracy doesn't work if the government gets to not listen to the people. Sorry that is wrong.

I just see it all as political games for partisan propaganda value. Parliament has never asked for such background, operational costs to be included in the acquisition costs of new gear because it's irrelevant to the gear chosen. Even when the Liberals were hyperventilating about the costs of the EH101 they weren't including in the costs of the bases they'd be housed at.

punked · April 8, 2012

I just see it all as political games for partisan propaganda value. Parliament has never asked for such background, operational costs to be included in the acquisition costs of new gear because it's irrelevant to the gear chosen. Even when the Liberals were hyperventilating about the costs of the EH101 they weren't including in the costs of the bases they'd be housed at.

We had that debate Argus. The Conservatives said here are the F-35 costs, Parliament said "not good enough". So the Conservatives said to bad that is all you are getting. Then there was a motion which was passed that said the government "needed to give parliament all the documents". Now we know the Conservatives didn't do that. It doesn't matter if the documents were important or needed or anything. We live in a democracy and the word of our parliament is law so when they say "show us the documents" then someone needs to go get the mountains of documents and give them to our parliament. Our democracy can't work that way.

Argus · April 8, 2012

I also pointed out why the Swiss have a bigger armed force because they draft men at age 18. Not only that because they draft people in order to go to war or have military action they must go to a referendum. Meaning the people who will actually fight the war decide to go to war. Which is why they never go to war.

That they draft people is irrelevant. On a per capita basis their armed forces are enormously larger than ours.

Based on population, to match Switzerland, we would need to have 500,000 in the armed forces, and 320,000 in the reserves.

That is a serious commitment to self defense. And to repeat, I don't see how they could possibly have an armed forces of 120,000 men at the budget stated, so I suspect there are some numbers games being played there.

Argus · April 8, 2012

We had that debate Argus. The Conservatives said here are the F-35 costs, Parliament said "not good enough". So the Conservatives said to bad that is all you are getting. Then there was a motion which was passed that said the government "needed to give parliament all the documents". Now we know the Conservatives didn't do that. It doesn't matter if the documents were important or needed or anything. We live in a democracy and the word of our parliament is law so when they say "show us the documents" then someone needs to go get the mountains of documents and give them to our parliament. Our democracy can't work that way.

And the consequences of not doing so to parliament's satisfaction is that the government falls. Which happened. So that chapter is, in my opinion, over with. I just don't see why people think there's some importance, other than political games, in fighting it again now.

punked · April 8, 2012

That they draft people is irrelevant. On a per capita basis their armed forces are enormously larger than ours.

Based on population, to match Switzerland, we would need to have 500,000 in the armed forces, and 320,000 in the reserves.

That is a serious commitment to self defense. And to repeat, I don't see how they could possibly have an armed forces of 120,000 men at the budget stated, so I suspect there are some numbers games being played there.

That is fine if you want to draft people send them basic training for a month a year then send them back to their day jobs we could have an Army that big at that costs. We choose a different route, we can have that Army at the cost that the Swiss do at a fraction of the price of ours. I would love to have a debate about cutting costs of our army to that of the swiss.

punked · April 8, 2012

And the consequences of not doing so to parliament's satisfaction is that the government falls. Which happened. So that chapter is, in my opinion, over with. I just don't see why people think there's some importance, other than political games, in fighting it again now.

However now. RIGHT NOW. Not two years ago but 5 days ago. We found out the Conservative government lied to parliament telling them these documents which we now know do exist didn't exist. Do you not see how that changed things?

Remember in 2004 when we went to the polls after Adscam broke? I don't remember the Conservatives saying 2006 "we already had an election on Adscam". They said "Now that we know more about what happened with Adscam we need to have an national election and talk about this again". My have times changed.

Argus · April 8, 2012

However now. RIGHT NOW. Not two years ago but 5 days ago. We found out the Conservative government lied to parliament telling them these documents which we now know do exist didn't exist. Do you not see how that changed things?

I'm not sure what you mean by documents other than the spending estimates tabled in parliament every year. Clearly everyone knew they existed. And I don't think most Canadians, when considering the cost of buying the F-35, were thinking about the costs of the hangars and bases. I know I wasn't. Because that's irrelevant - which you've pretty much already admitted. So I don't see the Tories as having lied to me. Not about this anyway.

Now if you want to talk about their promises of open government, of accountability, of giving power back to MPs, well... you won't find an argument from me on that score. They were full of crap.

Argus · April 8, 2012

That is fine if you want to draft people send them basic training for a month a year then send them back to their day jobs we could have an Army that big at that costs. We choose a different route, we can have that Army at the cost that the Swiss do at a fraction of the price of ours. I would love to have a debate about cutting costs of our army to that of the swiss.

If it works for the Swiss, if we could do it here at anything like their costs, then I'm all for it. Clearly our costs would be somewhat higher due to our vastly greater territory and the naval purchases we'd need to make, though, but if there could be savings, sure.

punked · April 8, 2012

I'm not sure what you mean by documents other than the spending estimates tabled in parliament every year. Clearly everyone knew they existed. And I don't think most Canadians, when considering the cost of buying the F-35, were thinking about the costs of the hangars and bases. I know I wasn't. Because that's irrelevant - which you've pretty much already admitted. So I don't see the Tories as having lied to me. Not about this anyway.

Now if you want to talk about their promises of open government, of accountability, of giving power back to MPs, well... you won't find an argument from me on that score. They were full of crap.

If everyone knew they existed then why was it such a big shock when the AG told everyone these estimates existed 4 days ago?

punked · April 8, 2012

If it works for the Swiss, if we could do it here at anything like their costs, then I'm all for it. Clearly our costs would be somewhat higher due to our vastly greater territory and the naval purchases we'd need to make, though, but if there could be savings, sure.

That is fine we can have that debate sometime.

Signals.Cpl · April 8, 2012

The same people who were attack the free world in the 90s. Loosely knit, poorly organized groups of extremists. You think 2001 was the first attack from these people. I will tell you who wasn't attack the free world in the 90s the communists that is for sure.

On September 10, 2001 no one cared about a terrorist because it was over there, not over here. The US government didn't get a call from the terrorists and inform them that "Hey we are changing the rules of war so change your doctrine and structure accordingly". There was a plan to scrap Canada's Armoured forces all 100 and some tanks, then we went to Afghanistan and realized we need the Tanks and in fact bought newer and better once.

The Military should not and does not prepare for THE war, the military prepares for A war. Preparing for a conventional war only, means that if an unconventional war comes along people needlessly die, likewise if we prepare for unconventional war and conventional war comes people die we lose. Canada cannot afford specialization in the military. We have to prepare to defend the North should anyone come knocking, we should prepare to defend our coast if someone decides to visit us. We should be ready to fight on our soil if we get terrorists here. We need to be ready to assist in natural disasters. The military is the versatile force that needs to meet every threat with limited resources. Stating that from now on we will only fight wars like Afghanistan means we are screwed if Russia or China pay us a visit, or we end up going to a war or Peacemaking operation where conventional wars are a necessity. The US can afford to spend money on specialization while Canada has to get the best for the money, and wether its the F-35 or another jet we need it. And the whole 11billion dollars that is added to the budget is designed to cause outrage and push for cancelation of the project.

In the Mid 90's the Cf needed new helicopters, so we signed a contract to get them. When the Liberals came to office, they cancelled the contract paid a 500million dollar fine and the CF didn't get a helicopter. Fast forward to 2012 and we are still waiting for the delivery of the helicopters that the Conservatives ordered, while the helicopters we have are a flying coffin. Because the government cancelled the project Air Force Crews have died in the aircraft that came in service in 1963. We are operating an aircraft older then the pilots. An aircraft that costs more and more every year to keep it flying, so the Liberals saved a few billion in 1990's but then they cost a number of Canadian Lives, and are now costing the people of Canada more money to purchase the helicopters, and the cost of maintaining the aging helicopters well past their lifespan. We can compromise here and end up with a useless piece of equipment that serves no purpose at all or we can spend the money now and know that we are ready for whatever comes our way.

Signals.Cpl · April 8, 2012

Nope the US pays Iceland quite a bit of Money to station their Bombers there to reach Russia faster. I guess if the US made us an offer I might think about it.

Tell me more about how much the US was involved one of the few wars Iceland fought? The cod war? You claim the US protects Iceland so what did they do during the Cod war?

Nope, the US stationed forces in Iceland because it was a strategic link between Europe and North America, if The link was severed then supplies and troops from North America would have been compromised. Iceland would have played the exact same role it did in World War 2.

Signals.Cpl · April 8, 2012

However now. RIGHT NOW. Not two years ago but 5 days ago. We found out the Conservative government lied to parliament telling them these documents which we now know do exist didn't exist. Do you not see how that changed things?

Remember in 2004 when we went to the polls after Adscam broke? I don't remember the Conservatives saying 2006 "we already had an election on Adscam". They said "Now that we know more about what happened with Adscam we need to have an national election and talk about this again". My have times changed.

I have 20 trucks, I want to replace 10 of them, manager 1 tells me it will cost 2.25million to replace the trucks.

1million for the trucks

1million for lifetime repairs

250k for unforeseen costs.

Manager 2 tells me that the first one is lying and that to purchase the trucks its 22.25million

10million for the operating costs(Fuel)

10million for salaries of the drivers

1million for the trucks

1million for lifetime repairs

250k for unforeseen costs.

Manager 1 says that the 20 million is already budgeted and the actual cost is 2.25million while manager 2 tells you the cost is 22.25million without informing you that the personell budget is now debited 10million and operating costs are debited 10million.

All I care about is how much the planes cost to buy and repay/upgrade and all the costs associated with them. I don't care how much it costs to pay for the pilots, because they are getting paid with or without the new jets.

DogOnPorch · April 8, 2012

Just would point out Iceland has been around as a country for about 200 years and has never had an army here.

During WW2, Iceland was in danger of being occupied by as little as a determined German U-Boat crew. It took the British Army, then the US Army, moving in to protect the place in order to keep Iceland from falling into Axis hands unchallenged.

Edited April 8, 2012 by DogOnPorch

Argus · April 8, 2012

If everyone knew they existed then why was it such a big shock when the AG told everyone these estimates existed 4 days ago?

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!

Signals.Cpl · April 8, 2012

So planes will stop Russia from taking our land which is resource rich, but Iceland is a special case because it doesn't make your argument stronger? Seriously!?! This is what you believe?

Canada has a lot of untaped natural resources that will become more valuable as the supply shrinks. Russia has claim to some of our Territory that could potentially hold a a lot of resources, naturally they want those as much as we do. Iceland is great place to have if you want to control the Atlantic, or screw with NATO in case of war, otherwise it is a not that rich in Natural resources. Comparing Canada and Iceland is useless because Canada has something many nations will want, while Iceland has something some Nations will want under specific Circumstances. This is not the 1800's when nations were after land for the sake of owning more land, now nations are after land that can be an economic asset in a world with less natural resources every day.

cybercoma · April 8, 2012

Canada has a lot of untaped natural resources

Now that they've cut funding to the CBC, it's unlikely that anyone will get out there and film them now.

Signals.Cpl · April 8, 2012

Now that they've cut funding to the CBC, it's unlikely that anyone will get out there and film them now.

Yeah, because thats how we extract natural resources, through CBC programming.

waldo · April 8, 2012

about that so-called "defence"... just how does, effectively, a F-35 light-bomber provide that, uhhh... Canadian defence? For all it's vaunted (suggested) might, everything critical I've read suggests the F-35 is a sorry match to true fighter interceptors... that much was sacrificed for the lofty (now questionable) stealth capability, notwithstanding it's limited range, AWAC and aerial fuel requirements. By the by, will Canada also have it's own AWACS and air-fuelers? Oh... who has those?
defence? Just what kind of so-called defence?

Are you now claiming an expertise in fighter jet operations which surpasses that of the air forces of Canada, the United States, and six other nations?

I realize you enjoy being spoon-fed; however, nothing I've said is a startling revelation. The JSF program had a window... one they lost... one the Chinese and Russians have closed. There is a reason the F-22 existed - as support for the F-35. There's a reason concern exists over the F-35 stealth. The so-called versatility of the F-35 meant it compromised on many levels over a true 'interceptor' fighter. Apparently, the F-35 will allow Canada to continue participating in the 'bombs away' aspirations of NATO - you know, that 'once per decade thingee' that supposedly substantiates the CF-18s today. But back to my question... you must equally feel emboldened (spoon-fed) to chirp in on => just how does the F-35 meet "defense" requirements for Canada (don't forget to comment on AWACS and aerial fuel aspects, hey)?

waldo · April 8, 2012

You are aware of how old those F-18s are, right?

you are aware of the recent $2 Billion expenditure to retrofit the CF-18s right?... declared as allowing them to 'fill the gap' until 2020... you're aware of that money spent, right?

waldo · April 8, 2012

You pacifist types really make me laugh.

says the chickenhawk! Keep that drumbeat rolling Argus... how's resurrecting the cold-war coming along, anyway?

Smallc · April 8, 2012

you are aware of the recent $2 Billion expenditure to retrofit the CF-18s right?... declared as allowing them to 'fill the gap' until 2020... you're aware of that money spent, right?

Until 2020...when the F-35 will start coming on line in Canada if we continue as scheduled...right?

waldo · April 8, 2012

Until 2020...when the F-35 will start coming on line in Canada if we continue as scheduled...right?

right... right alongside that timeline that originally had the F-35 as full production in 2008... shifted to 2010... 2016... 2018... now suggesting available for Canada in 2019/2020. Hey now, I understand there are continued problems with the F-35 - significant continued problems. The U.S. military and other countries are "pulling back" on orders or the timing of said orders, or at least re-examining options. The U.S. Congress has formally advised the U.S. military there is "no mo money"... that if problems continue to affect delivery/scheduling, the net result will be a military "loss of tails". So ya, I guess you're right so long as the F-35 isn't scrapped. Hey now, if the F-35 is scrapped, who you gonna call?