F-35 Purchase

[eyeball]

i'd like to ask the left when you go out and buy a new car ot truck do you sit your wife down and tell her, look the price of the truck is 50 k , i plan to own that truck for 15 years it's going to cost another 50K to put gas in it, maintain it, new tires, new oakleys becasue it have to look good,new clothes to match the glasses, new drive way don't want to get it dirty, this is exactly what your asking DND to do...and good luck with getting your wife or anyone to agree with a 100K truck purchase....

I track and project my household budget on a fairly detailed spreadsheet and it's actually her that needs the luck when it comes to big purchases.

You seem to be arguing that ignorance is bliss. I've heard that one before.

Edited April 10, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

...and good luck with getting your wife or anyone to agree with a 100K truck purchase....

I also learned quite early how easy it is to bamboozle someone and even yourself with a spreadsheet. It's even easier to auto fill several months or years of rosy projections across a spreadsheet than grim reality. My wife has never shown much interest in learning how to use a spreadsheet and it would be easier for me to prove that we could easily afford my new boat but not her new car.

That said, I'm still hoping for my new boat and she's driving in style.

[cybercoma]

So to clarify, your position is this is not a debate on purchasing the F-35 itself, but on the process that it was selected and the accounting in which it was priced and if we even want fighters?

So if the Government, as per the AG report, crosses all their “T’s” and dots all their “I’s”, and still find the F-35 as the most suitable Hornet replacement, you would be fine with it’s selection?

I know Waldo’s stance, as I know dre’s and eyeball’s , what is your’s? I ask, since you seem as one of the more vocal opponents, that obviously has more than trollish opinions. If you (or perhaps the NDP as a party?) don’t feel Canada can afford and/or requires modern fighter aircraft, why not state this as position of policy/personal opinion?

I don't know what we can afford. We haven't exactly had an open discussion about the costs of this jet and we haven't had an open-tender process to see all of the possible options (if there are any others). You're asking me to make a whole bunch of assumptions, then come to a conclusion. I don't know if the F-35 is the right jet. I don't know if we can afford it or if we should be changing our focus going forward and taking on roles that don't require that kind of air support. That's the problem. The government has rammed this thing through without being open or accountable. It reeks of kickbacks and fraud. It looks like Airbus 2.0, but to the tune of billions. So even if the F-35 was the right jet and the best bang for our buck, we can't even have that discussion due to the inept financial management of the Conservatives.

[Wild Bill]

I don't know what we can afford. We haven't exactly had an open discussion about the costs of this jet and we haven't had an open-tender process to see all of the possible options (if there are any others). You're asking me to make a whole bunch of assumptions, then come to a conclusion. I don't know if the F-35 is the right jet. I don't know if we can afford it or if we should be changing our focus going forward and taking on roles that don't require that kind of air support. That's the problem. The government has rammed this thing through without being open or accountable. It reeks of kickbacks and fraud. It looks like Airbus 2.0, but to the tune of billions. So even if the F-35 was the right jet and the best bang for our buck, we can't even have that discussion due to the inept financial management of the Conservatives.

CC, do yourself a favour and take a blood pressure pill! They haven't even cut a purchase order yet! They haven't bought any jets! The Liberals signed us up for a place in the queue and so far it's still too early for any subsequent government to make the final purchase decision.

You're going on like they've already spent billions. Man, you do hate Tories! You're reviling them for what they MIGHT do!

[punked]

i'd like to ask the left when you go out and buy a new car ot truck do you sit your wife down and tell her, look the price of the truck is 50 k , i plan to own that truck for 15 years it's going to cost another 50K to put gas in it, maintain it, new tires, new oakleys becasue it have to look good,new clothes to match the glasses, new drive way don't want to get it dirty, this is exactly what your asking DND to do...and good luck with getting your wife or anyone to agree with a 100K truck purchase....

I'd like to ask the right, why did Harper change the rules in 2006 for procurement to done this way if he never intended to follow the rules. This isn't about accounting the way we want or the way you want. It is about accounting the way the LAW DICTATES.

But it is directly contrary to longstanding Treasury Board directives, which stress throughout that the costs of any acquisition must include “all relevant costs over the useful life of the acquisition, not solely the initial or basic contractual cost” (Contracting Policy, 2006). Among the costs deemed “relevant” are those related to “planning, acquisition, operating and disposal,” including forecast “modifications, conversions, repairs, and replacement.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/09/f-35-price-gap-andrew-coyne/

Deal with it.

[Jack Weber]

I'd like to ask the right, why did Harper change the rules in 2006 for procurement to done this way if he never intended to follow the rules. This isn't about accounting the way we want or the way you want. It is about accounting the way the LAW DICTATES.

Probably for the same reason he didn't follow his own election date law...

Political expediency...

[jacee]

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.

Signals.Cpl, I owe you an apology. When I wrote this post I mistakenly thought you were the author of the thread complaining about being called a bigot. You weren't. That was stopstaaron.

My apologies.

Carry on.

[Argus]

If fiscal conservatives were concerned that lefties are blissfully unaware of fiscal realities they need not be concerned any longer.

Oh, if anything, the last few weeks have convinced me even more that lefties don't have the first clue about fiscal or economic realities. That's why they're not a valid alternative tot he Tories.

[Argus]

I don't know what we can afford. We haven't exactly had an open discussion about the costs of this jet and we haven't had an open-tender process to see all of the possible options (if there are any others).

There are no other options. The US had the tendering process. We just went along with them.

You're asking me to make a whole bunch of assumptions, then come to a conclusion. I don't know if the F-35 is the right jet. I don't know if we can afford it or if we should be changing our focus going forward and taking on roles that don't require that kind of air support.

There is no option to buying a replacement jet. There is no option to not having a means to protect Canada's air space. We are part of alliances, and are required to contribute at least something, however modest, to the collective defense. The alternative to being part of those alliances it to go it alone and either pay a much greater sum in order to adequately defend ourselves or simply trust in the good will of other nations.

[waldo]

There is no option to buying a replacement jet. There is no option to not having a means to protect Canada's air space. We are part of alliances, and are required to contribute at least something, however modest, to the collective defense. The alternative to being part of those alliances it to go it alone and either pay a much greater sum in order to adequately defend ourselves or simply trust in the good will of other nations.

Afghanistan... a decade of Canadian military participation... a major partner in the NATO/ISAF Afghanistan operations... hardly modest... no jets deployed/utilized!!! Are you discounting Afghanistan, the significance of Canada's participation in Afghanistan... do you not accept that level/degree of, as you say, 'required contribution'... don't you support the troops?

[Guest Derek L]

I don't know what we can afford. We haven't exactly had an open discussion about the costs of this jet and we haven't had an open-tender process to see all of the possible options (if there are any others). You're asking me to make a whole bunch of assumptions, then come to a conclusion. I don't know if the F-35 is the right jet. I don't know if we can afford it or if we should be changing our focus going forward and taking on roles that don't require that kind of air support. That's the problem. The government has rammed this thing through without being open or accountable. It reeks of kickbacks and fraud. It looks like Airbus 2.0, but to the tune of billions. So even if the F-35 was the right jet and the best bang for our buck, we can't even have that discussion due to the inept financial management of the Conservatives.

Fair enough, and thank you for the honest answer. Though I’m quite obviously a partisan Tory, have served in the Air Force and was a very small cog (for a relatively short period of time) within the military industrial complex, and an avid supporter/cheerleader of the F-35 itself, at this point, I too feel the release of the AG report was a positive thing.

My reasoning, taking the political optics aside, is this will create a national conversation (varying in degree) about not only the Hornet replacement, but Canadian defence procurement (lack there of) strategy in general. Quite frankly, in my relatively short span of traveling around the sun, I’ve witnessed (in some cases first hand and directly), the mishandling of such an important (and expensive) portfolio by all parties. I would also add that in my view, our country has only had a coherent foreign, and in turn, a matching defence policy under a single Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent.

Quite clearly, the most efficient and cost effective approach to defining our nation’s defence policy, is to first define the role we wish to see ourselves play on the international stage, followed by defining what it is we wish to be able to accomplish militarily, and only then recognizing and purchasing the required equipment to carry out the task. Where this approach has historically become derailed by Government, is when there are no clear definitions, no commitment to funding and regional, political pork.

There is no reason, if Canada so desires, for us not to be able to field an effective, modern military, within our current budget, that reflects Canadians desire to be a world actor……..Be it Humanitarian missions, peacekeeping/making, defence of our sovereignty, alliance obligations and war.

[Guest Derek L]

Bomb threat forces Korean Air jet to land in B.C.

Korean Air Flight 72, with 149 people on board, had taken off from Vancouver International Airport headed for Seoul, South Korea, at 2:30 p.m. PT Tuesday.

The crew turned back off the north coast of B.C. after a bomb threat was made in a telephone call to the airline's Los Angeles office, a Korean Air spokesman told CBC News.

The flight was diverted to the airbase at Comox, on Vancouver Island, escorted by U.S. air force F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled from Portland, Ore., according to Victoria's Search and Rescue Co-ordination Centre.

Just saying........

[Smallc]

They were closer. I've always thought that there should be a third squadron based in Comox. There are often CF-18s forward deployed there. obviously, that wasn't the case this time.

[cybercoma]

How do those F-15s stack up against the F-35A?

[Guest Derek L]

They were closer. I've always thought that there should be a third squadron based in Comox. There are often CF-18s forward deployed there. obviously, that wasn't the case this time.

I know they were closer…….And I know the purpose of NORAD……..And this demonstrates the inherent benefits of being in such relationship with the United States, a relationship that they expect us to reciprocate (to an extent). I have no misgivings, that when required, part time US Airmen, provide cover to Canada’s west coast and third largest city.

As for forward deployed Hornets to Comox, this practice has been severely curtailed since the early retirement of a third of our fleet. As for basing a tactical fighter squadron there fulltime, even if we had the aircraft, personal and money, there is no longer room at CFB Comox.

[bush_cheney2004]

How do those F-15s stack up against the F-35A?

Like this:

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/20100804235555.aspx

[Guest Derek L]

How do those F-15s stack up against the F-35A?

Older (design) then our Hornets, and rapidly running out of airframe life.....The F-35A will be replacing F-15s, F-16s and A-10s with the USAF, thus allowing younger USAF F-15/F-16s to become hand-me-downs to the US Air Force Reserve and various Air National Guard units, replacing their older versions of said aircraft.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Derek L

[Army Guy]

Because it's not a total price unless it's the total price.

No the total price should include what is part of the purchase agreement, ie the aircraft, if a wpns pkg, Munitions pkg, extra tech pkg, maintance contract, training pkg, those are what should be included in the cost as they can be define today....asking about costs that may or may not happen in the future is just guessing...how do we know how many inteceptions of Russian ac will happen in the next 36 years and how much fuel will they burn...

The government needs to secure that money through taxation and budgets. It's not a given. Parliament needs to approve the government's budget each year.

The cost the AG is asking to add, are part of DND annual budget. It's already accounted for every year. Accounting in it's O&M (operating and maintance)slice of the entire DND budget which if you had looked is one of the larger slices. So with these new accounting practices does this mean now the O&M budget is mout, free cash to be added to something else....or are we in fact accounting for the same stuff twice..which is not good accounting practice...another piont is this is the first purchase that this has been asked for, you said it was changed in 2006 and yet this is the first purchase it been applied....

I can't wait for the navys 40 to 50 year break down for ships...

In any case i still don't follow the logic of accounting for things twice, giving an estamate that is guess at best, this scewed info could not be used for anything but added false facts to the fire that is already a blown out of wack...

They're not going to, but theoretically, parliament can decide that it does not want 65 jets. It could in theory decide it wants zero jets. So whatever is decided, we need to ensure that the funding is there.

Since the tories have a majority, tech parliment has decided it wants 65 jets, and in theory the debate is over, according to you. As dereck has already suggested nobody is contesting the tech abilities of the AC, the debate is the cost....but the majority has already stated the amount to buy and the cost it will pay...only way to change that is to change the majority...

If we decide to have 65 fighter jets, we also need to fund the pilots, fuel, maintenance, upgrades, weapons, etc. for the entire life of those jets. Those costs are itinerant, not fixed, as you and others are arguing. They are the costs associated with buying 65 brand new fighter jets.

As explained already these cost are taken out of the DND's annual budget approved every year. Pilots wages are taken out of a separate slice of DND's budget the same slice as everyones wages and they are fixed as the number of pers is dictated by parliment, ..all the other things on your list are imposable to perdict with any accuracy such as fuel each aircraft is sceduled to fly x amount of hours however that can change with each situation such as libya, that includes wpns etc...if this is difficult to perdict for one year try doing it over 36 years, and what happens when we reach that dollar value , ie we go over the amount we predicted, do we ask for more funding again'st that orginal purchase, vice versa what hapens if we go way under does that funding now become surplus available for other projects..either way you look at it something has to change..

They are not cost assiciated with buying 65 F-35 as the same cost are already being spent on our f-18's , which brings we to another question what happens when we keep a piece of equipment past it's sceduled life, which budget does that come out of, or do they once again go back to the orginal contracxt and ask for more money against that contract....or do they say frig it and just make DND eat it...

[Army Guy]

track and project my household budget on a fairly detailed spreadsheet and it's actually her that needs the luck when it comes to big purchases.

SO when you and your wife sit down to discuss the new boat , do you tell her that the boat is going to last for 25 years , it's going to cost x amount for maint, fuel, spare parts, almost doubling the price or do you stick with the sticker price not to snow her because she already knows it runs on fuel, and you've already budgeted for it...

That said, I'm still hoping for my new boat and she's driving in style.

I don't think thats just your problem alone, i think all men have this same problem...my wife drives a new car while i drive an old beat up pick up.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Afghanistan... a decade of Canadian military participation... a major partner in the NATO/ISAF Afghanistan operations... hardly modest... no jets deployed/utilized!!! Are you discounting Afghanistan, the significance of Canada's participation in Afghanistan... do you not accept that level/degree of, as you say, 'required contribution'... don't you support the troops?

No Jets were deployed because first we were not asked to provide jets, but rather troops, second the Airforce said we could not afford it, or it was not cost effective. Flying missions in Canada is one thing but when you enter combat you eat up very rapidly the remaining hours left on the airframe...they decided not to, it was'nt because ground forces did not want our own boys flying support for us, after 2 incidents with US airforce pilots....

[waldo]

Just saying........

just saying, what? Oh... not withstanding your stated, "no misgivings", if not you, others in this thread have really trumpeted the, "we can't rely on the Americans" theme.

I have no misgivings, that when required, part time US Airmen, provide cover to Canada’s west coast and third largest city.

As for basing a tactical fighter squadron there full time, even if we had the aircraft, personal and money, there is no longer room at CFB Comox.

by the by... why the need for a "fighter escort"? To shoot the passenger plane down... over a bomb threat?

[waldo]

We are part of alliances, and are required to contribute at least something, however modest, to the collective defense.

Afghanistan... a decade of Canadian military participation... a major partner in the NATO/ISAF Afghanistan operations... hardly modest... no jets deployed/utilized!!! Are you discounting Afghanistan, the significance of Canada's participation in Afghanistan... do you not accept that level/degree of, as you say, 'required contribution'... don't you support the troops?

No Jets were deployed because first we were not asked to provide jets, but rather troops, second the Airforce said we could not afford it, or it was not cost effective. Flying missions in Canada is one thing but when you enter combat you eat up very rapidly the remaining hours left on the airframe...they decided not to, it was'nt because ground forces did not want our own boys flying support for us, after 2 incidents with US airforce pilots....

the contribution was significant, the contribution was troops - not jets... that is the/my most obvious point. The 'eating up the airframe hours' is a most telling comment!

[eyeball]

SO when you and your wife sit down to discuss the new boat , do you tell her that the boat is going to last for 25 years , it's going to cost x amount for maint, fuel, spare parts, almost doubling the price or do you stick with the sticker price not to snow her because she already knows it runs on fuel, and you've already budgeted for it...

I don't think thats just your problem alone, i think all men have this same problem...my wife drives a new car while i drive an old beat up pick up.

I showed her that by scrapping my old pick-up I'd have the boat paid for in a few months. As for fuel it's a row boat and I was able to snow her with the idea that I'd have ripped abs and a six-pack in a few months too.

[waldo]

keyboard warriors!

The F-35 program may have been vulnerable because of its lengthy development. Defense analysts note that the JSF’s information system was not designed with cyberespionage, now called advanced persistent threat, in mind. Lockheed Martin officials now admit that subcontractors (6-8 in 2009 alone, according to company officials) were hacked and “totally compromised.” In fact, the stealth fighter program probably has the biggest “attack surface” or points that can be attacked owing to the vast number of international subcontractors.

There also is the issue of unintended consequences. The 2009 hacking was apparently not aimed at the F-35 but rather at a classified program. However, those accidental results were spectacular. Not only could intruders extract data, but they became invisible witnesses to online meetings and technical discussions, say veteran U.S. aerospace industry analysts. After the break-in was discovered, the classified program was halted and not restarted until a completely new, costly and cumbersome security system was in place.

There is another view of what is affecting JSF and why. A former senior staffer for the U.S. Senate contends that the F-35 program’s problems reflect diminishing interest in manned aircraft whose performance is limited primarily by its aircrew.

“I think the biggest issue facing the JSF is that there has been a profound shift in the military’s perception of the value of manned aircraft compared to unmanned aircraft,” he says. “I’ve had long conversations with a Marine Corps forward air controller who has just returned from Afghanistan. He pointed out that an F/A-18 can be kept on call for 15 minutes, but an unmanned Reaper is there for eight hours. The day of the fighter pilot is over. There has been a seismic shift in the military’s value judgment of manned and unmanned aircraft.”

[jacee]

It’s clear to me that there is a new way of doing business, and we will do it in compliance with the Auditor-General’s recommendation, with his conclusions,” Mr. MacKay said.

“That’s how we’ll proceed, but do note that this is not the way it was done by previous governments."

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dnd-prompted-mackay-to-tout-f-35-as-cheapest-option/article2397928/?service=mobile

Kicking and whining, the Tories finally agree to abide by the new law that they passed themselves, still miffed that they are being expected to do anything different than what the Liberals before them did.

I wonder if, when they elected the HarperCons, their supporters expected them to use the Liberals as their standard for performance?

I wonder if they're having pep rallies cheering the Tories for being just as good (or bad?) as the Liberals were?

Will they never make their own way?

Will they always doom themselves to walk in the footsteps of the (doomed) Liberals?

"YAY ... we're no better than the Liberals!" Just isn't quite what I expected the Cons to crow about!

Edited April 11, 2012 by jacee