F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

so when we extended the life of the CF-18's did we include the operating costs, and the salaries for the personnel involved? We either include operating cost in all purchases or none at all.

[bleeding heart]

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.

Hey, now, that's not too friendly eh?; also, it's unwise to criticize someone on the subject of reading even as you set about butchering style and grammar.

Edited April 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

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?

You're aware that 2020 is less than 7 years away, right? You're capable of counting that high without too much strain?

[Argus]

Sure but what I am saying you guys have been saying this for 200 years while Iceland spend its money on butter.

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.

Why can we not afford the type of military that every other NATO member can afford?

[jacee]

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.

I'll grant your point on Tories not directly lying IF the differences in estimates result from differences in what's included. However you're wrong about the documents asked for and witheld from parliament: What was requested was the background documentation on what WAS included - ie, precisely the information now in play. We now know that that documentation existed and was in government hands at the time the Tories were refusing to produce it. Did they lie? In court, withholding information under oath - failing to tell the WHOLE truth - is perjury, just like telling a bald-faced lie. Business and politics, unfortunately, seem to thrive in an environment of half-truths.

They were in contempt of parliament and the people for not producing the documentation to support their estimate, and caused the current kerfuffle. It's still not clear to me why Harper is doing this to himself ... unless it is pure contempt of Canadians - He thinks he gets to make any decisions he wants and it's none of our business?

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.

Isn't "full of crap" just another way of saying "They lied."

Frankly, debating whether politicians 'lied' or not is just a distraction from the real issuesthat you've identified of accountability to Canadians, and transparency about how our money's being spent and why.

[Argus]

And has a huge amount of resource wealth so why wouldn't they be the first target for the invasion that will never happen.

As far as I'm aware the major natural resource wealth of Iceland consists of fish. I'm not sure I'd term that a "huge amount of resource wealth"

[Argus]

My argument is we need to move away from the cold war and look to really is our enemy and stop boxing with shadows.

My argument is unchanged from my earlier post. We can either go our own way and defend ourselves, which requires a certain amount of spending, cooperate with allies to spread that spending around, or go pacifist and hope no one has any ill designs. Since I'm not an optimist, I discount the latter option. That leaves going the route of Sweden and Switzerland and paying for a large military, or staying in NATO and paying for a smaller military. In either event, we need fighter aircraft. And no one has offered up a reasonable alternative to the F-35.

[Argus]

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.

People should re-read some pertinent parts of the Matthew Fisher column I posted earlier:

As with the entire F-35 debate, the auditor general’s report is being discussed with no external context. The competence and integrity of the folks at the Defence Department aside, what about the eight other partner countries in the program, and the Japanese, who have ordered 42 F-35s? Why are a bunch of Europeans signed up to an American program when the EU nations already produces several newish fighter jets of their own. Are they all idiots, too?

The multinational JSF program follows on that of the F-16, another U.S. warplane chosen by many European countries about 30 years ago. As with the F-35, the F-16 had some initial teething problems but it was ultimately successful. This may explain why the F-35 European partner nations have shown far more patience with the F-35’s hurdles than Canadian critics have.

As for Canada not having a competitive bidding process before deciding on the F-35, neither did its JSF partners except the U.S., which chose Lockheed Martin’s X-35 over Boeing’s X-32. The Japanese, who are not partners, did hold a competition and concluded the JSF was better than Boeing’s Super Hornet and the Eurofighter consortium’s Typhoon.

[Signals.Cpl]

Hey, now, that's not too friendly eh?; also, it's unwise to criticize someone on the subject of reading even as you set about butchering style and grammar.

Sorry, had to dumb it down for you guys.

[bleeding heart]

Sorry, had to dumb it down for you guys.

No need for the effort demanded by such generous altruism. We'll follow along as you choose, instead, to post intelligently.

[jacee]

Why can we not afford the type of military that every other NATO member can afford?

"Every other NATO country?

We don't have the population (taxpayers) to support a military like that of the US, UK, France and other big players.

[Signals.Cpl]

No need for the effort demanded by such generous altruism. We'll follow along as you choose, instead, to post intelligently.

I came to the conclusion that since you guys don't like those pesky little things we call facts you wouldn't mind my style or grammar.

[bleeding heart]

I came to the conclusion that since you guys don't like those pesky little things we call facts you wouldn't mind my style or grammar.

Well, now that you've been disabused of this mistaken opinion, you might wonder what else you've been wrong about.

[bush_cheney2004]

As far as I'm aware the major natural resource wealth of Iceland consists of fish. I'm not sure I'd term that a "huge amount of resource wealth"

...and renewable energy for the production of electricity (geothermal + hydro). Less need to fight over hydrocarbons.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, now that you've been disabused of this mistaken opinion, you might wonder what else you've been wrong about.

I'm not wrong about this. Right off the bat our friend waldo outright ignored the facts, then continued to argue even when proven wrong. Then there was this business about the government "lying" when it is pretty obvious that it was either a misunderstanding on the part of the AG, or misleading.

Seems to me one side brings all the facts while the other side ignores the facts.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[jacee]

There is a book, now I know you dont like reading, but ...

Cpl, perhaps if YOU backed off on the personal insults/attacks, you wouldn't receive them, eh? Cos dishing them out but complaining when you get them back just might be a kinda bigoted thing to do, eh?

Just sayin' ...

[capricorn]

Why can we not afford the type of military that every other NATO member can afford?

I think it has something to do with butter.

[jacee]

...

Right off the bat our friend waldo outright ignored the facts, then continued to argue even when proven wrong.

...

Gee, just like you did in the thread about the G20.

Imagine that!

Just sayin' ...

[Signals.Cpl]

Cpl, perhaps if YOU backed off on the personal insults/attacks, you wouldn't receive them, eh? Cos dishing them out but complaining when you get them back just might be a kinda bigoted thing to do, eh?

Just sayin' ...

I didn't complain about being insulted, I complained that I waste time to prove my position, while others ignore the facts and provide none to back their own ideas. You want to insult me go right ahead I have absolutely no problem with that as your opinion will neither make nor brake my day.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[capricorn]

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.

Wouldn't a formal new national defence strategy mean that concerns about specific countries would be laid bare for all to see, including said countries? I think your idea is laudable Jerry, if only it was possible the way things stand. I entrust my government and the senior bureaucracy to do what's best to keep the country safe and secure. In the present political climate, I'm worried that our defence strategies would not be kept confidential because I just don't sense that all Parliamentarians are working for the greater good of our country. Too many agendas are playing out concurrently. I shudder to think what the House would look like debating a national defence plan with a bunch of Parliamentarians working at cross-purposes on such an important matter.

[Signals.Cpl]

Wouldn't a formal new national defence strategy mean that concerns about specific countries would be laid bare for all to see, including said countries? I think your idea is laudable Jerry, if only it was possible the way things stand. I entrust my government and the senior bureaucracy to do what's best to keep the country safe and secure. In the present political climate, I'm worried that our defence strategies would not be kept confidential because I just don't sense that all Parliamentarians are working for the greater good of our country. Too many agendas are playing out concurrently. I shudder to think what the House would look like debating a national defence plan with a bunch of Parliamentarians working at cross-purposes on such an important matter.

But the advantage would be a consistent defence strategy and spending rather then changing the priorities every time a new government is elected.

[punked]

Ok some here are saying

9 billion purchase

14 billion purchase and maintenance

25 Billion purchase, maintenance and operations.

So I went digging and last year this government was saying 9 Billion purchase+maintenance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/04/pol-fantino-f-35s.html

[Signals.Cpl]

Ok some here are saying

9 billion purchase

14 billion purchase and maintenance

25 Billion purchase, maintenance and operations.

So I went digging and last year this government was saying 9 Billion purchase+maintenance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/04/pol-fantino-f-35s.html

The problem is that when someone states that 25 billion is the price tag, people are not aware that the 11billion is already coming out of the general budget of the DND. I don't see the 14billion price tag as a lie, I see it as a logical calculation since adding the operating cost confuses the situation and then would open up the calculation of expected pay raises over the next 20 years which could further bring up the cost of the plane, when the money is coming in from a different budget.

[Smallc]

So I went digging and last year this government was saying 9 Billion purchase+maintenance.

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.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Wouldn't a formal new national defence strategy mean that concerns about specific countries would be laid bare for all to see, including said countries? I think your idea is laudable Jerry, if only it was possible the way things stand. I entrust my government and the senior bureaucracy to do what's best to keep the country safe and secure. In the present political climate, I'm worried that our defence strategies would not be kept confidential because I just don't sense that all Parliamentarians are working for the greater good of our country. Too many agendas are playing out concurrently. I shudder to think what the House would look like debating a national defence plan with a bunch of Parliamentarians working at cross-purposes on such an important matter.

I really don't want any nation to be our enemy. Further to this, I don't think we have any enemies. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would prompt this nation to attack either the Americans, or the Russians. who represent the sum total of our neighbors. What defense strategy is required under those circumstances? Honestly, we do not stand a hope of defending this nation, against either of our neighbors, which is where any real trouble that actually threatens the citizens can come from. To try and defend it will cost us billions and we simply cannot do what most people believe we need to do which is simply defending our borders. Therefore the nation requires a new approach. In defense of this nation we need to rethink what we are doing.

Its not as simple as advertizing who are friends are or who are enemies are. There is a paradigm shift possibility in as much as one possible outcome would see the nation declare itself neutral. That choice would void the need for any military expenditures at all. There are many possibilities..........