F-35 Purchase

[punked]

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.

The incredible changing number eh? If everyone is miss informed about it then there is something wrong with in our governments because they aren't making anything clear.

[Smallc]

The incredible changing number eh?

The numbers haven't changed, you and a few others are just being incredibly dense.

[punked]

The numbers haven't changed, you and a few others are just being incredibly dense.

Just every few moths we get a new number that was there all along?

[Smallc]

Just every few moths we get a new number that was there all along?

[punked]

I'll just leave this here. It is a write up about how real business and governments handle life cycle costs. I keep hearing they way the AG estimated them is wrong and the governments is right. The way the AG did the estimate is the convention, the way the government did it is how people cook books which is what the national post wrote the other day.

http://www.mtain.com/logistics/loglcc.htm

[Signals.Cpl]

I'll just leave this here. It is a write up about how real business and governments handle life cycle costs. I keep hearing they way the AG estimated them is wrong and the governments is right. The way the AG did the estimate is the convention, the way the government did it is how people cook books which is what the national post wrote the other day.

http://www.mtain.com/logistics/loglcc.htm

Then the AG should have informed the people where the other 11billion dollars are coming from. It is misleading to let people believe that it is 11 billion over and above the 14billion and the budget.

[jacee]

The incredible changing number eh? If everyone is miss informed about it then there is something wrong with in our governments because they aren't making anything clear.

And that's precisely why Harper's Tories were found to be in contempt of Parliament (and Canadians): Because they refused to provide the documentation to clarify what was included in their estimates.

And they still have not provided that information to the public, but instead continue to play 'word games'. The contempt continues ...

[Smallc]

Why is it then, that I find it so incredibly simple to understand?

[punked]

Then the AG should have informed the people where the other 11billion dollars are coming from. It is misleading to let people believe that it is 11 billion over and above the 14billion and the budget.

Because he did the estimates the right way the way any auditor for an organization would?

[cybercoma]

The numbers haven't changed, you and a few others are just being incredibly dense.

A few others like the PBO, the auditor general, most of the media outlets in the country, the defence department, the US government. Bunch of idiots.

[cybercoma]

I'll just leave this here. It is a write up about how real business and governments handle life cycle costs. I keep hearing they way the AG estimated them is wrong and the governments is right. The way the AG did the estimate is the convention, the way the government did it is how people cook books which is what the national post wrote the other day.

http://www.mtain.com/logistics/loglcc.htm

GAAP

[punked]

Oops

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

Because he did the estimates the right way the way any auditor for an organization would?

I don't see it that way. We are not going to acquire a new capability, getting the F-35's will not require getting new pilots and and ground support crews nor will it require any major infrastructure change. When we talk about purchasing destroyers, do we account for the salary of the crew?

We are replacing one weapon system for another, same manpower requirements, same infrastructure requirements. Operational cost is also irrelevant as how does the AG come to that conclusion? Did he account for a possible war where the fighters will see much more use? If we use this criteria now, we have to use it every time. If the conservatives bow to pressure and decide to open the project to bidding, the price tag would be 11billion right of the bat, without even looking at a plane.

[punked]

I don't see it that way. We are not going to acquire a new capability, getting the F-35's will not require getting new pilots and and ground support crews nor will it require any major infrastructure change. When we talk about purchasing destroyers, do we account for the salary of the crew?

We are replacing one weapon system for another, same manpower requirements, same infrastructure requirements. Operational cost is also irrelevant as how does the AG come to that conclusion? Did he account for a possible war where the fighters will see much more use? If we use this criteria now, we have to use it every time. If the conservatives bow to pressure and decide to open the project to bidding, the price tag would be 11billion right of the bat, without even looking at a plane.

It doesn't matter that you don't see it that way. The convention that business and governments for projects of this nature as I have posted a paper about is to do the way the Auditor did. That it makes it much easier to keep costs of projects down and harder to hid money for programs else where on balance sheets. It makes it harder to cook the books so this how it is done.

[capricorn]

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

I could see the need for a revamped strategy on the nuts and bolts of military requirements, exclusive of military strategy to deal with specific threats.

The 1994 White Paper on Defence was issued during the Chretien era when David Collenette was the Minister of National Defence. It's on National Defence's website so one is to presume DND still operates within its parameters. Perhaps it's time the government revisited that document and worked to have it updated in Parliament.

Here's what it says about procurement.

Capital Program, Procurement and Industrial Impact

57. National Defence is radically restructuring plans to purchase capital equipment. Planned acquisitions will be cut by at least 15 billion dollars over the next 15 years.

58. New equipment will be acquired only for purposes considered essential to maintaining core capabilities of the Canadian Forces, and will be suited to the widest range of defence roles. Emphasis will be on extending the life of equipment. Wherever possible, the Forces will operate fewer types of equipment than is now the case, and purchase equipment that is easier to maintain.

59. DND will adopt better business practices. This means, inter alia:

greater reliance on a "just-in-time" delivery system to reduce inventory costs;

procurement of off-the-shelf commercial technology whenever possible;

an enhanced partnership with the private sector;

the transfer or contracting out of support functions and activities to Canadian industry; and

a streamlined, more efficient materiel support process.

60. Multi-purpose, combat-capable forces require the support of a technologically sophisticated industrial base. National Defence will work with Industry Canada, as well as Public Works and Government Services Canada, towards harmonizing industrial and defence policies to maintain essential defence industrial capability.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/1994%20White%20Paper%20on%20Defence%20Synopsis.htm

The AG spoke about problems with the process and said he could not point to one group or individual responsible for not exercising due diligence. He was quite right that there are too many players in the process so when need be, who do you hold accountable for the F-35 acquisition? The government and the bureaucracy followed the process already established as contained in the most recent white paper on defence, whereas the better course would have been to develop a new model for replacing the fighter jets on day one.

[Signals.Cpl]

It doesn't matter that you don't see it that way. The convention that business and governments for projects of this nature as I have posted a paper about is to do the way the Auditor did. That it makes it much easier to keep costs of projects down and harder to hid money for programs else where on balance sheets. It makes it harder to cook the books so this how it is done.

Did he account for the danger pay that the pilots and ground crew would receive in a war zone? Or the move costs associated with moving the pilots, ground crew and their families? What about the support staff? You know the cooks, the MP's or the medical staff? And where is the cost for the aircraft that will be supporting these aircraft? And then we go and ask, did he account for the infantry who will have to protect any base in a war zone? Anti-air weapon systems and their crews? I can go on and justify pretty much every trade as essential for the running of the F-35's or any aircraft for that matter. The price tag would jump significantly.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[waldo]

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

still making up your own facts... spewing your own shyte, hey?

[waldo]

Cpl, perhaps if YOU backed off on the personal insults/attacks, you wouldn't receive them, eh?

the Cpl!!! ya, the guy gets a bit testy... doesn't take well to challenge/criticism one little bit.

[punked]

Did he account for the danger pay that the pilots and ground crew would receive in a war zone? Or the move costs associated with moving the pilots, ground crew and their families? What about the support staff? You know the cooks, the MP's or the medical staff? And where is the cost for the aircraft that will be supporting these aircraft? And then we go and ask, did he account for the infantry who will have to protect any base in a war zone? Anti-air weapon systems and their crews? I can go on and justify pretty much every trade as essential for the running of the F-35's or any aircraft for that matter. The price tag would jump significantly.

He did the accounting the way it was suppose to be done. I combed the net for an easy reference from a credible source about how these estimates are done. I found a few and posted the easiest explanation which when you read threw it will show the government did it the wrong way. Which might be why they didn't show the books when parliament asked them to.

[waldo]

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.

they're called committees... see "in camera" for a further clue

[Signals.Cpl]

I could see the need for a revamped strategy on the nuts and bolts of military requirements, exclusive of military strategy to deal with specific threats.

The 1994 White Paper on Defence was issued during the Chretien era when David Collenette was the Minister of National Defence. It's on National Defence's website so one is to presume DND still operates within its parameters. Perhaps it's time the government revisited that document and worked to have it updated in Parliament.

White paper is not binding, the government can promise the world and deliver nothing. We need something where we determine what we want from the CF, and give them the means to accomplish that mission and send the military on missions that fall within the mandate that the government has agreed on.

[Guest Derek L]

White paper is not binding, the government can promise the world and deliver nothing. We need something where we determine what we want from the CF, and give them the means to accomplish that mission and send the military on missions that fall within the mandate that the government has agreed on.

Too true, see 1987......

[Signals.Cpl]

He did the accounting the way it was suppose to be done. I combed the net for an easy reference from a credible source about how these estimates are done. I found a few and posted the easiest explanation which when you read threw it will show the government did it the wrong way. Which might be why they didn't show the books when parliament asked them to.

Sources?

[waldo]

I'll just leave this here. It is a write up about how real business and governments handle life cycle costs. I keep hearing they way the AG estimated them is wrong and the governments is right. The way the AG did the estimate is the convention, the way the government did it is how people cook books which is what the national post wrote the other day.

http://www.mtain.com/logistics/loglcc.htm

Auditor General Recommendation

: National Defence should refine its estimates for complete costs

related to the full life cycle

of the F-35 capability, and provide complete estimated costs and the supporting assumptions as soon as possible. Furthermore, National Defence should regularly provide the actual complete costs incurred throughout the full life cycle of the F-35 capability.

National Defence Response

: Agreed. National Defence will continue to refine its full life-cycle cost estimates for the F-35 capability and commits to making the estimates and actual costs of the F-35 available to the public.

[Signals.Cpl]

Too true, see 1987......

Thats why we need something binding from one government to another government.