F-35 Purchase

[cybercoma]

So why isn't the NDP asking about the vastly more expensive shipbuilding program? Could it be they don't want to ruffle the feathers all those union workers?

Maybe they see that investment as being a worthwhile one, as compared to the F-35s. I don't know. I don't really care.

What I care about is the government not telling parliament the cost of things when asked.

[Topaz]

A new report out today, says the US is working on the "sixth generational jet fighter"! The report also mentions that the only reason Canada wants the F-35 is to fight with the US overseas. I can't see how either the US or Canada can afford theses jets when the other nations have reduced their orders for the F-35, which then would raises the price for other nations buying them. The Tories are know for their spending and if Harper wants this jet, taxpayers will forking out the big bucks, which I think its not a good investment because one good shot in a war and its gone. Also, the opposition wants McKay to resign, which he won't and Harper won't fire him and probably can't if McKay was smart when he brought the PC party in with the Alliance party. http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada%2Bpurchase%2Bstalls%2Balready%2Bpushing%2Bsixth%2Bgeneration%2Bfighter/7690204/story.html

[Signals.Cpl]

There you go trotting out the ridiculous 42 year number that Coyne addresses in his article.

The bottom line is that parliament and Canadians just want to know how much money is going to go towards these jets over their lifetime. It doesn't matter if the operating costs would be the same. We still have to spend that money. In order for the MPs to decide how much money should be spent on fighter jets, they need to know the full costs. They may decide to spend the money elsewhere. But the problem is that neither you, nor the Conservatives can come out and give Canadians an honest number about what it's going to cost taxpayers to fund these things.

It will cost 45billion, and the RCN ships as well as the CG ships will cost 300+ billion.

[Signals.Cpl]

Maybe they see that investment as being a worthwhile one, as compared to the F-35s. I don't know. I don't really care.

What I care about is the government not telling parliament the cost of things when asked.

So you DONT care that the government is using the same formula for both project but you accuse them of being liars for only one? How does that work? Either they are liars on both counts or on neither...

[cybercoma]

It will cost 45billion, and the RCN ships as well as the CG ships will cost 300+ billion.

What's your point?

Since the ships will cost $300+ billion and they're a more immediate concern, perhaps we need to sacrifice the aircraft to afford them.

[cybercoma]

So you DONT care that the government is using the same formula for both project but you accuse them of being liars for only one? How does that work? Either they are liars on both counts or on neither...

I didn't say they were liars. I'm saying they need to stop spinning the numbers on the fighter jets. Nobody cares about the acquisition costs alone. Parliament needs to know how much money will need to be raised in order to keep these things operational over their entire lifetime. Those are the figures the government originally refused to provide. When the PBO finally gave them to Parliament, because that's his job, they trashed him for it. Now they got KPMG to investigate the numbers to try and prove Kevin Page wrong, but they came up with the same numbers, according to the federal governments accounting practices.

The Conservatives are playing ridiculous semantic games on this file. Maybe $46 billion dollars is a deal. Maybe other aircraft will cost just as much. Who knows. But when you buy a car, you need to know if you can afford to make pay for the loan, the insurance, the fuel, the oil, the tires, the air filters, the washer fluid, the wiper blades, and everything else that goes into it for as long as you own the car. If you run out of money or something comes up and you can't afford to make the payments, then what happens? You stop driving the car or you sell it. Maybe you put less food on the table or wear socks with holes in them for awhile. Maybe you pawn some of your belongings. Is that what we want to happen with our air force? Of course not. Therefore, it's important that parliament has an idea of all the costs associated with buying and using this equipment, so they can be sure that it is funded over its lifetime. They need to know how this will affect taxes, other expenditures, and social services down the road because once we've acquired the aircraft, we don't all of a sudden get to stop spending money on them.

Edited December 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

What's your point?

Since the ships will cost $300+ billion and they're a more immediate concern, perhaps we need to sacrifice the aircraft to afford them.

The aircraft are a decade older then the majority of the naval fleet………the only difference I can see, aside from cost, is union jobs in predominantly NDP ridings……Seriously, why isn’t the NDP questioning the shipbuilding program? Are you/the NDP suggesting we should forgo the fighter replacement, and in turn, NORAD? You rather the Americans “do it for us”?

[Signals.Cpl]

What's your point?

Since the ships will cost $300+ billion and they're a more immediate concern, perhaps we need to sacrifice the aircraft to afford them.

No outrage that you were lied to? The ships and planes are calculated the exact same way, you present this phoney outrage for the F-35s while you are quiet about the ships.... I have not seen you post one thing about demanding the CPC explain the costs of the RCN and CG ships mainly because that is NDP territory and a big no no.

Or we need to cancel both projects and do a fair comparison with all the costs associated with them, and when American ships come up cheaper we go and buy those.

[Wilber]

Maybe they see that investment as being a worthwhile one, as compared to the F-35s. I don't know. I don't really care.

What I care about is the government not telling parliament the cost of things when asked.

If you don't really care about the total cost of the ship program, what's the big deal about the F-35's? I can understand that you wouldn't like inconsistency when it comes to cost estimates so why are you so inconsistent yourself?

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't say they were liars. I'm saying they need to stop spinning the numbers on the fighter jets. Nobody cares about the acquisition costs alone. Parliament needs to know how much money will need to be raised in order to keep these things operational over their entire lifetime. Those are the figures the government originally refused to provide. When the PBO finally gave them to Parliament, because that's his job, they trashed him for it. Now they got KPMG to investigate the numbers to try and prove Kevin Page wrong, but they came up with the same numbers, according to the federal governments accounting practices.

The Conservatives are playing ridiculous semantic games on this file. Maybe $46 billion dollars is a deal. Maybe other aircraft will cost just as much. Who knows. But when you buy a car, you need to know if you can afford to make pay for the loan, the insurance, the fuel, the oil, the tires, the air filters, the washer fluid, the wiper blades, and everything else that goes into it for as long as you own the car. If you run out of money or something comes up and you can't afford to make the payments, then what happens? You stop driving the car or you sell it. Maybe you put less food on the table or wear socks with holes in them for awhile. Maybe you pawn some of your belongings. Is that what we want to happen with our air force? Of course not. Therefore, it's important that parliament has an idea of all the costs associated with buying and using this equipment, so they can be sure that it is funded over its lifetime. They need to know how this will affect taxes, other expenditures, and social services down the road because once we've acquired the aircraft, we don't all of a sudden get to stop spending money on them.

What a beautiful strawman…..We’ve been operating the Hornets for decades, and even during the fiscal troubles of the 80s and 90s, weren’t force to “park or pawn them”………

As for the operating costs associated with fighters, we’ve been operating the current fleet within DND’s budget for decades, and if the new acquisition costs of the F-35 will only amount to a additional ~9 billion (as confirmed by the independent audit) amortised over their life, I don’t see what the big flap is all about…….other than the NDP just “opposing” for the sake of being the official opposition.......Unless of course the NDP’s ulterior motive is to neuter the RCAF, and by extension, our countries sovereignty.

[Wilber]

This whole thing is getting far too political and one thing we know from experience is that when these things get sidelined by politics, tax payers end up getting hosed.

[Signals.Cpl]

I didn't say they were liars. I'm saying they need to stop spinning the numbers on the fighter jets.

The numbers are fluid... why? Because the same data could be presented either way depending on who you are and what your agenda is. The extra "costs" are not added because of the F-35s they are there because we already have this ability...what bothers me is that no one who throws around the 35 billion number explains to people where it comes from and that its part of the budget...thereby lying by omission.

Nobody cares about the acquisition costs alone.

Why was that not an issue before for other projects? Or why is it not an issue for the Naval Ships and the Coast Guard vessels? Why is it an issue for one particular project?

Parliament needs to know how much money will need to be raised in order to keep these things operational over their entire lifetime.

Somehow I doubt that is your motivation and the motivation of the NDP...

Those are the figures the government originally refused to provide.

How many projects in the last 30 years be it military or civilian have required those numbers? Those numbers are to determine the funding of the CF and the internal budget.

When the PBO finally gave them to Parliament, because that's his job, they trashed him for it.

Was it clearly explained where he got the total from? That it was not 35 billion on top of the regular budget but that it was ripped from the budget for the CF?

Now they got KPMG to investigate the numbers to try and prove Kevin Page wrong, but they came up with the same numbers, according to the federal governments accounting practices.

If you give it to the NDP I bet you they can double the cost... the numbers are a guess as to what it will cost, if they are used at the same tempo as the CF18's, if we end up using them at a much higher operational tempo the price increases dramatically.

The Conservatives are playing ridiculous semantic games on this file.

The NDP is playing politics, costing more money just so we get back to this aircraft.

Maybe $46 billion dollars is a deal. Maybe other aircraft will cost just as much. Who knows.

I know for a fact...why? Because the difference in cost would be based on the aircraft purchase as the rest of the cost would be required no matter which plane is chosen, they will still require infrastructure and the manpower...

But when you buy a car, you need to know if you can afford to make pay for the loan, the insurance, the fuel, the oil, the tires, the air filters, the washer fluid, the wiper blades, and everything else that goes into it for as long as you own the car.

So do you ask the car dealership for the price of the car or the price to maintain the car over 20 years? And then if you do so do you ignore the same requirement for your house?

If you run out of money or something comes up and you can't afford to make the payments, then what happens?

In this case? You cut the military numbers therefore costs go down.

You stop driving the car or you sell it. Maybe you put less food on the table or wear socks with holes in them for awhile. Maybe you pawn some of your belongings. Is that what we want to happen with our air force? Of course not.

So what happens when the numbers come out, they are at 45 billion dollars and the numbers for all other aircraft are between 44 billion and 50 billion? What then? Do we stop purchasing fighters because they are expensive?

What about rifles? Do we account for the salary of the soldier carrying it? The ammunition that will be needed to fire it? Medical expenses and other expenses incurred?

Therefore, it's important that parliament has an idea of all the costs associated with buying and using this equipment, so they can be sure that it is funded over its lifetime.

Why not ask the same questions for the ships?

They need to know how this will affect taxes, other expenditures, and social services down the road because once we've acquired the aircraft, we don't all of a sudden get to stop spending money on them.

But why for the fighters? Why only for them and no other purchase? IT seems awfully selective to pick only one project and demand it meet a standard while ignoring dozens of others that don't meet the same standard?

How many times has the government released the cost of a hospital with the projected expense in salary for the doctors and nurses and support staff as well as all the equipment in that hospital?

[Guest Derek L]

This whole thing is getting far too political and one thing we know from experience is that when these things get sidelined by politics, tax payers end up getting hosed.

Indeed……..clearly then the NDP are attempting to make the F-35 into another ‘elicopter like wedge issue…………They are throwing everything at…….The best was Mulcair’s claim in an interview a few days ago that the F-35 won’t work in the arctic………complete and utter tripe……..As I said, it’s telling that they aren’t asking the “tough” questions when it comes to shipbuilding, when clearly our tax dollars would go much further outsourcing to a American/Dutch/Polish/South Korean shipyard and/or a joint development with the British, Australians, Dutch and Spanish.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Derek L

[Wilber]

Indeed……..clearly then the NDP are attempting to make the F-35 into another ‘elicopter like wedge issue…………They are throwing everything at…….The best was Mulcair’s claim in an interview a few days ago that the F-35 won’t work in the arctic………complete and utter tripe……..As I said, it’s telling that they aren’t asking the “tough” questions when it comes to shipbuilding, when clearly our tax dollars would go much further outsourcing to a American/Dutch/Polish/South Korean shipyard and/or a joint development with the British, Australians, Dutch and Spanish.

Yup, almost 20 years since the Liberals cancelled the EH101 and the Navy is still waiting for its helicopters. Think they will have them in time for the new ships?

[DogOnPorch]

Yup, almost 20 years since the Liberals cancelled the EH101 and the Navy is still waiting for its helicopters. Think they will have them in time for the new ships?

Anti-grav hover tanks will probably be in common use by then.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This whole thing is getting far too political and one thing we know from experience is that when these things get sidelined by politics, tax payers end up getting hosed.

So why not consider going back to the drawing board. Its not just the equipment purchase that is problematic but the process as well. We need to fix the process before we become involved in it, or we can do nothing but continue to get hosed.

There are numerous constraints the federal government has to work around. Between trade agreements and defense obligations there are few ways around a majority of the problems. Open bidding processes, lowest cost contracts to be awarded, etc,etc...only then do we get to the unforeseen additional expenses of modifications and upgrades...impossible to calculate. There is a cost associated with national defense, one not easily calculated. The entire situation leaves much to be desired.

Should the RCAF require an aircraft, they could build it themselves, or they could buy it. If they buy it there are hundreds of protocols costing millions of dollars in order to get their hands on it. If they build it........their only consideration is their own budget. The real difference being that the tax payer does not fund the PROFITS of the private contractor. I tend to believe that this process was erroneously designed to put us into a debt we are unable to repay. Remove the profit portion and the tax payer saves money....period. Stop the waste and do it now.

There is no question that a great deal of tax dollars will be spent, and the least amount possible to be spent is the desire of the public. What is clear is that a completely different sort of process is required to get this job done with minimum expense to the public. Every opportunity must be taken to ensure maximum value to the tax payer, and that is not possible by knowingly using tax dollars to generate revenues for private industry. It is a paradigm we can simply no longer afford.

So what should we do in my opinion is simply fund the RCAF to do what it needs to do. The government believes in the need for new aircraft and the RCAF desires them to fulfill their defensive mandate. The RCAF needs to do the research and development internally because that is the only way to keep jobs and dollars in the country, its that simple. Domestic solution is a political imperative. A political effort to export tax dollars cannot sustain itself long before the media and the public, and that is the exact position the government now finds itself in.

This nation should not have an aircraft to replace the CF18 that is not a unique Canadian solution. The design and development of new aircraft takes as long as the previous airframe has air hours available. That is a reality, and we need to consider it carefully. By the time you finish building all the airframes in the program, the next generation is on the assembly line. It is an endless cycle, every nation on earth is stuck in this same paradigm. This nation requires at least 6 squadrons of aircraft, not a mere 65 but a more realistic 130 aircraft . The three current squadrons can not even cover our coastal defense, to double that number is the only acceptable solution, defend the nation.

This is the true duty of our government .......defend the nation first. They are not doing it. Now we argue about how much money it will cost to do it, instead of getting it done. That is the way it is, so now we must really think about the money, where it comes from and where it goes. Defending this nation should not represent profit for another nations but instead security and prosperity within our own lands defended by our own people.

The opportunity exists for a political effort to resurrect a dream, but do it even better. WE can start to fix the problems of government with this one single effort. End the greed and corruption of politics and the rape and pillage of tax dollars. Defend the nation not the corporation, not at tax payer expense.

[Guest Derek L]

Yup, almost 20 years since the Liberals cancelled the EH101 and the Navy is still waiting for its helicopters. Think they will have them in time for the new ships?

Oh, I know all too well about the “Cadillac’s”…….Myself and many others from the MH community packed her in in ’94.…….That truly was the most boneheaded move ever made in the history of Canadian defence procurement, and in the terms of (Canadian) maritime/naval aviation, even more detrimental then retiring the Bonaventure 15-20 years early and selling her for scrap……………

As to the Cyclone, I think at this point it’s doubtful we’d ever see one aboard one of the 280s (AFAIK, there isn’t even plans to modify the hangers or beartraps on the destroyers) and we’ll likely not see the first HELAIRDETS composed of Cyclones until the second half of this decade………So the 330s will likely see the Cyclones, but it is possible, that not all of the Frigates will get the required modifications, ultimately it will depend on how the shipbuilding program pans out……

[Wilber]

Look at the cost of the F-35 amortized over 1500 aircraft and this by a country that already has the infrastructure in place to build it. Same goes for the Typhoon. The idea that we could set up such infrastructure to build 150 aircraft every 30 years or so is a pipe dream. To do so, we would have to set up the military equivalent to Bombardier and go into competition with every other country building military aircraft. Our armed forces alone, flat out cannot support such an enterprise.

[Guest Derek L]

Look at the cost of the F-35 amortized over 1500 aircraft and this by a country that already has the infrastructure in place to build it. Same goes for the Typhoon. The idea that we could set up such infrastructure to build 150 aircraft every 30 years or so is a pipe dream. To do so, we would have to set up the military equivalent to Bombardier and go into competition with every other country building military aircraft. Our armed forces alone, flat out cannot support such an enterprise.

Or better yet, look at the French who spend nearly three times what we do on defence, have a near nationalized aviation industry, a history of building (and selling) their aircraft and their final result is the Rafale, an aircraft that started development in the early 80s (and is still a work in progress) and now costs more, per plane, then the F-35.

[cybercoma]

The aircraft are a decade older then the majority of the naval fleet………the only difference I can see, aside from cost, is union jobs in predominantly NDP ridings……Seriously, why isn’t the NDP questioning the shipbuilding program? Are you/the NDP suggesting we should forgo the fighter replacement, and in turn, NORAD? You rather the Americans “do it for us”?

They agreed to the shipbuilding contract and its a done deal. Your point is moot. It makes no difference whatsoever why the NDP isn't questioning it and at this point it would be inappropriate to question it.

And I'm not suggesting we forego fighter replacement. I'm suggesting the government lay the cards on the table instead of acting like idiots.

You know, I voted for the Conservatives in the face of Liberal secrecy and backroom politics. You know why I voted for the Conservatives in that election? Because they promised to clean up that mess. The promised accountability and transparency.

Shame on me for believing them. I know now that I can never trust the CPC as long as Stephen Harper is at the helm. He used to be the guy that fought for transparency. He was the guy that fought against omnibus bills. Now he's the guy making them.

Shame on them for lying and trying to conceal the costs of these fighters from the public, parliament, and the PBO.

And shame on you for supporting a government that would use my credit card without telling me how much they're putting on it.

[Guest Derek L]

They agreed to the shipbuilding contract and its a done deal. Your point is moot. It makes no difference whatsoever why the NDP isn't questioning it and at this point it would be inappropriate to question it.

No, it's not a done deal.......As I posted in the shipbuilding thread, the Government is still seeking outside help on development of the JSS/AOR portion, and that’s one of the easier segments of the entire program………..And no orders have yet been placed for a single naval vessel……….Like I said, it’s telling on the lack of response by the NDP…….You’re worried the F-35 will force us to cut social programs, but not a question about a program that is many magnitudes greater in terms of overall cost.........

Like the F-35, no contracts have been signed for the ships.

And shame on you for supporting a government that would use my credit card without telling me how much they're putting on it.

~9 billion dollars..........So about those ships......

[cybercoma]

~9 billion dollars..........So about those ships......

I'm sure the only expense you had when you bought a car was the sticker price too.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sure the only expense you had when you bought a car was the sticker price too.

Well yeah, my previous truck also required insurance, upkeep and it certainly didn’t run on recycled hemp and the laughter of children………The only new cost, were the payments over 5 years……

[cybercoma]

Well yeah, my previous truck also required insurance, upkeep and it certainly didn’t run on recycled hemp and the laughter of children………The only new cost, were the payments over 5 years……

The new cost doesn't matter. You need to be able to cover all of the costs over the life of the vehicle. Otherwise, you can't drive that vehicle.

[Guest Derek L]

The new cost doesn't matter. You need to be able to cover all of the costs over the life of the vehicle. Otherwise, you can't drive that vehicle.

Sure it does, since it’s an added financial burden…………Your position is naive at best, if you didn’t factor in that with a new car, like the one previous, you’ll have to pay for fuel, new tires, insurance etc over the course of it’s “life”……….Any reasonable person would have that amount of foresight………..

The NDP’s argument is that the Conservatives just stated the purchase price of the new “car”, and didn’t mention that like the old car, the new car will require gas and insurance, just like the car we own now…….That’s a moronic argument to make……..

As to the costs over the life of the car, like I said, said costs were a requirement for the old car, and if we could afford the old car within our budget, why wouldn’t we be able to afford the new car? The only increase in cost is the initial purchase price………but now you say that doesn’t mater……..

So the purchase price doesn’t mater, I assume since the Chevy, Ford and Dodge all cost about the same and we need a new truck going forward, and the annual cost of upkeep will cost about the same, but what does mater (If I’m understanding you correctly) is if we’ll be able to afford the cost of operating the truck into the future………But we can currently afford to operate our current truck and the purchase price doesn’t mater, so what’s the problem?

Meanwhile, the NDP isn’t at all concerned with the much greater purchase price and cost of operating a yacht, a yacht that with next to no current experience, we’/re going to build in the driveway……..

NDP = No Defence Policy