F-35 Purchase

[PIK]

Frankly, I don't give a crap about the F-35 program either.

I do care about government accountability and transparency. Something the CPC has utterly failed at, despite their myriad promises.

There is nothing here, the price was not what they expected and are moving on. None were bought,and they do not make decsions on what the media says.

[cybercoma]

Again, with a one minute googling, your strawman is disproved:

From summer 2010:

http://www.forces.gc...?cat=00&id=3471

And from October of 2010:

http://www.forces.gc...?cat=00&id=3619

If the NDP isn't listening or doesn't understand the concept.........

*edit to add........And, as linked in the recent NP link, said costs ($250 million) are now "proven" by KPMG

Thank you for repeating the same irrelevant crap over and over again. It really makes the discussion interesting. I guess the PBO didn't need to do his audit. KPMG didn't have to do their audit. The opposition parties, not just the NDP, just need to listen better. Thanks for clearing that up.

[segnosaur]

No. What's moronic is saying that they don't have to release those costs even though <em>it's their own policy that says they have to, the auditor general says the have to, and the PBO has demanded that they do.Hiding, then denying, then spinning the full cost of the F-35s is ridiculous.

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

The government has given the expected costs for an ~20 year period. The PBO has been expecting cost estimates over a >30 year period (which of course would be higher).

The problem is, any estimates for costs past 20 years is probably going to be very inaccurate, possibly to the point of being useless. Its going to depend on how the technology holds up, future advancements, whether we use our planes in a combat situation or not, and a variety of other factors. Heck, its even possible that the planes may not be in use past 20 years. (Although we will have been flying the CF-18 for >3 decades by the time its retired, we only used the CF-101 for ~20 years.)

And yes, you're right... when you buy a car you want to know all the costs for buying and operating the car. But realistically, it would only make sense to consider the costs for the next ~10-15 years (i.e. what you would reasonably expect a car to last.) If someone went and said "give me the cost of driving the car the next 25 years", you'd probably say (and quite rightly) "I can't tell you how expensive things will be past the next decade".

[PIK]

This is just the opp trying to invent scandals, they are hoping the canadians are to stupid to see that.

[Wilber]

The government has given the expected costs for an ~20 year period. The PBO has been expecting cost estimates over a >30 year period (which of course would be higher).

The problem is, any estimates for costs past 20 years is probably going to be very inaccurate, possibly to the point of being useless. Its going to depend on how the technology holds up, future advancements, whether we use our planes in a combat situation or not, and a variety of other factors. Heck, its even possible that the planes may not be in use past 20 years. (Although we will have been flying the CF-18 for >3 decades by the time its retired, we only used the CF-101 for ~20 years.)

And yes, you're right... when you buy a car you want to know all the costs for buying and operating the car. But realistically, it would only make sense to consider the costs for the next ~10-15 years (i.e. what you would reasonably expect a car to last.) If someone went and said "give me the cost of driving the car the next 25 years", you'd probably say (and quite rightly) "I can't tell you how expensive things will be past the next decade".

It is reasonable to think we will be operating any CF-18 replacement for much longer than 20 years simply because of the complexity and cost of this type of aircraft. The sixties were a different era. There were a myriad of new designs coming out and in service with the US and other services. During the sixties we could afford to order 200 CF-104's and 132 CF-101's. By the time the eighties rolled around, we could only afford 138 CF-18's to replace both of them. Now we are told we can only afford 65 F-35's to replace the CF-18.

God forbid we end up with the F-18E/F. Fine aircraft and nothing against it but if the US and Australia phase them out in 2030 as planned, we will be faced with paying a huge premium to be the sole operator of an obsolete aircraft, with no possibility of upgrades unless we are prepared to pay 100% of the R&D, tooling an manufacture. Either that or looking for a replacement when the F-35 would be less than half way through its service life. A replacement that could easily be the F-35 anyway.

I guess an upside could be that there would be plenty of F-18E/F's parked in the desert which we could pick up cheap and cannibalize for parts. Then we could have a real third world airforce.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Wilber

[PIK]

If thism is right, the govermnet has told us the truth about the jets, and more to do with the hidden agenda of the left.

You are being lied to about the cost of fighter jets, except the lying isn’t being done by the government.

If you’ve paid attention to the news at all lately, you’ve heard about the “rising costs” of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets with the new F-35.

Initial government costs to buy the plane came in at $9 billion, but this week headlines screamed about the cost being $46 billion.

What a load of garbage.

A report from auditing firm KPMG, commissioned by the government, said the full cost of the plane, from development through operating and on to decommissioning, was $45.8 billion.

That estimate includes fuel, pilots and maintenance — all things that would need to be paid for regardless of which plane is purchased.

It is a strange form of accounting that says we need to account for every shoelace and jug of windshield washer fluid that might come near the planes.

Can you imagine what the cost of your car would be if you calculated its cost over decades, including estimates of every brake job, oil change and fill-up?

We don’t do this for other government programs or purchases, yet the opposition and the media demand that this is the only true way to account for military purchases.

When a previous Liberal government promised a new national daycare program, no one asked what it would cost over 40 years.

In fact, the F-35 program was signed on to by the Liberals and no one asked back then how much this would cost over four decades.

Here is something remarkable you haven’t seen in the headlines.

The report from KPMG found that the government had been telling the truth from the beginning: The cost to just buy the planes was less than $9 billion. more...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/12/13/feds-told-truth-on-f-35-opposition-really-about-clipping-air-force-wings

[PIK]

A another point is , it seems the CBC costs us more them the jets would.

[bush_cheney2004]

A another point is , it seems the CBC costs us more them the jets would.

Yes...and still no NHL hockey on TV.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

This is just the opp trying to invent scandals, they are hoping the canadians are to stupid to see that.

The opposition, KPMG, the PMO, the media.... they're all in cahoots.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're blind.

[Smallc]

No, the reality is, this is being twisted by the opposition and the media (not a conspiracy, just laziness). The story on CJOB yesterday saying that the cost of the F-35 had ballooned by 5x the original projection....no it didn't. Is that supposed to be journalism?

[punked]

No, the reality is, this is being twisted by the opposition and the media (not a conspiracy, just laziness). The story on CJOB yesterday saying that the cost of the F-35 had ballooned by 5x the original projection....no it didn't. Is that supposed to be journalism?

Lets be honest most journalism about any parties policy is poor and lazy journalism. I am willing to admit that.

[Smallc]

It's pretty terrible really that the media hasn't explained that:

$9B = A

$14.7 = A + B

$25B = A + B + C

$45B = A +B2 + C2

[punked]

It's pretty terrible really that the media hasn't explained that:

$9B = A

$14.7 = A + B

$25B = A + B + C

$45B = A +B2 + C2

That is what they always do though. It isn't any different then it use to be they have always been bad at explaining policy matters.

[cybercoma]

It's pretty terrible really that the media hasn't explained that:

$9B = A

$14.7 = A + B

$25B = A + B + C

$45B = A +B2 + C2

Regardless, the problem is that the House asked for A+B+C. The cabinet gave the A and said they don't have A+B+C. Then the PBO came out with a figure for A+B+C and the Conservatives trashed him, called him a liar, and said his figures were wrong. Then it came out that the government all along had the A+B+C number, but lied to parliament about not having it. Then the KPMG audit confirmed the PBO's numbers. Now the government is trying to claim that the costing should be over 42 years in order to reduce the per year price, so they can talk about it that way.

The cost of the planes is $46 billion over 30 years. Full stop. They had those numbers from the beginning, refused to disclose them, got caught, and are now continuing their spin on the numbers.

I don't want a government that's going to lie about their figures, withhold their figures from parliament, and try to trump them up when they're caught. That is not the openness and accountability that Harper promised.

Moreover, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of openness and accountability that crosses party lines and remains relevant regardless of who forms the government.

You may think "shrug* "no big deal. They all do it." Well, they're all in the wrong. And the Conservatives were given a mandate to change that when they first came into power in 2006. They took modest steps, like creating the PBO. But look at how that has turned out. Now he's taking them to court, so he can do his job properly.

This is not about fighter jets and never has been. It's about government being accountable to parliament and it ain't happening. In fact, Peter Van Loan was just ripped a new one by the Speaker for trying to further undermine parliament. WIthout saying it in so many words, Scheer pretty much chastized Van Loan for implying that they may as well close up the House of Commons and let the CPC just hand their legislation to the GG directly.

Edited December 15, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

No, they were given A and A + B. The government didn't give them A + B + C, you're correct, but then, that information has never before been given...ever.

[cybercoma]

No, they were given A and A + B. The government didn't give them A + B + C, you're correct, but then, that information has never before been given...ever.

You keep saying it has never before been given.... ever. Yet it's in the regulations that it has to be given. They were told by the auditor general that they had to be giving those numbers too. So don't pretend that they didn't know that this is the way they were supposed to be doing things.

Edited December 15, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

You keep saying it has never before been given.... ever. Yet it's in the regulations that it has to be given.

I repeat, no government program has ever been publicly costed this way, and for good reason - this method of costing, the everything including the kitchen sink method, is very misleading. Including salaries and fuel and food for the pilots really isn't relevant to the cost of this particular jet.

[Wilber]

You keep saying it has never before been given.... ever. Yet it's in the regulations that it has to be given. They were told by the auditor general that they had to be giving those numbers too. So don't pretend that they didn't know that this is the way they were supposed to be doing things.

Next time you go to buy a vehicle, tell the salesman that you want to know the total operating costs for the next ten years and you want it in writing. Let us know what he says.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Wilber

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Still arguing about nickels and dimes!

[Guest Derek L]

Thank you for repeating the same irrelevant crap over and over again. It really makes the discussion interesting. I guess the PBO didn't need to do his audit. KPMG didn't have to do their audit. The opposition parties, not just the NDP, just need to listen better. Thanks for clearing that up.

Exactly..........What did the audit prove? The CPC's budget estimates were correct..........If the NDP had of listened better, we wouldn't have pissed away over 600k on said audit..........

[Peter F]

Exactly..........What did the audit prove? The CPC's budget estimates were correct..........If the NDP had of listened better, we wouldn't have pissed away over 600k on said audit..........

its the NDP's fault! Afraid not. Harpers got a majority government and no NDPer sits in cabinet. If you must blame - blame the people that actually dropped it.

[Guest Derek L]

its the NDP's fault! Afraid not. Harpers got a majority government and no NDPer sits in cabinet. If you must blame - blame the people that actually dropped it.

Blame for what? The Government hasn't been muddying the waters surrounding the F-35...............

[cybercoma]

Next time you go to buy a vehicle, tell the salesman that you want to know the total operating costs for the next ten years and you want it in writing. Let us know what he says.

Parliament didn't ask the manufacturer. So your metaphor is irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

I repeat, no government program has ever been publicly costed this way, and for good reason - this method of costing, the everything including the kitchen sink method, is very misleading. Including salaries and fuel and food for the pilots really isn't relevant to the cost of this particular jet.

Again, it doesn't matter. That is the way it is supposed to be done. That is the way the auditor general told them well before that they have to start doing costing. That is the way the PBO told them they need to do costing. And that is exactly the costing that parliament asked for. The government doesn't have the privilege of hiding numbers on a "need to know" basis. And even if they did, this is a need to know thing. They have to determine whether the government can support the fighters over the lifetime of having them. Fixed costs or not, they need to determine whether those on-going costs are viable. It's pretty simple really and you're intentionally being misleading about it and throwing your support behind a government that legally did the costing wrong and continued to hide from parliament the costs that they asked for, in accordance to those regulations. The government does not have the option of lying or hiding expenditures from Parliament. They should not be telling Parliament to "go fish" when they ask for the prices. They should have laid it all out on the line and said A is for acquisition and B+C are the ongoing costs for a total of $X billion over the lifetime of the planes. Our government isn't just spending $A for acquisition, they will need to maintain $X in order to use the stuff. That is a commitment that they will be making for an entire generation of Canadians and Parliament has a right to know the entire cost, so they can make an appropriate decision about the procurement.

[cybercoma]

Still arguing about nickels and dimes!

No. We're arguing about government accountability and the supremacy of parliament.