cybercoma Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 keyboard warriors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) 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. This incident shows that we have to rely on the Americans in our own airspace for something as simple as providing escort for a airliner in distress. by the by... why the need for a "fighter escort"? To shoot the passenger plane down... over a bomb threat? What else could get to this aircraft quickly enough to supply an escort, certainly nothing that we have other than the CF-18 and the nearest of them was in Cold Lake. If the bomb threat was a real bomb on board do you think that aircraft would be better off alone out over the ocean with no one to at least monitor the situation, provide assistance or co-ordinate rescue efforts if the aircraft went down? Edited April 11, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Because it's not a total price unless it's the total price. 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. 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. 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. Fuel, maintenance, upgrades and weapons are not fixed costs. They will vary according to what we use them for during their lives and what new upgrades and weapons become available or are required for future situations. Every year our provincial government budgets for fighting forest fires. Those budgets are often blown to hell during severe fire seasons. The military is no different. I'm thinkin pilots won't be getting a raise just because they are transitioning from the CF-18 to the F-35 and remember we originally had 138 of them, not 65. Edited April 11, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Fuel, maintenance, upgrades and weapons are not fixed costs. They know that. They're just playing politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) It is definitely true that accountants include operational costs in budgets. Anyone who wants to practice fiscal conservatism will budget for the worst case scenario, not hide 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost. Attacks against ‘not too bright’ MacKay intensify after AG’s scathing F-35 report Edited April 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 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. by the by... why the need for a "fighter escort"? To shoot the passenger plane down... over a bomb threat? This incident shows that we have to rely on the Americans in our own airspace for something as simple as providing escort for a airliner in distress.What else could get to this aircraft quickly enough to supply an escort, certainly nothing that we have other than the CF-18 and the nearest of them was in Cold Lake. If the bomb threat was a real bomb on board do you think that aircraft would be better off alone out over the ocean with no one to at least monitor the situation, provide assistance or co-ordinate rescue efforts if the aircraft went down? huh! Presuming on... urgency... are you saying there's no civilian aircraft that could get out there 'fast enough' and provide "escort"? Just what is the actual air-flight time (max) for one of those U.S. F-15s... anyway? and what about UAVs? What about investing in 24/7 UAV reconnaissance for the West Coast... your monitoring and coordination concerns taken care of... yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Norwegian government: Norwegian authorities have calculated two prices for aircraft purchase. Purchase price and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years. and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping' $40 Billion... $15 Billion more than the original estimate - for only 52 F-35s over only a 30 year life-cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Norwegian government: Norwegian authorities have calculated two prices for aircraft purchase. Purchase price and total price including operation during the expected life of 30 years. and... Norwegian life-cycle estimates are coming in at a 'whopping' $40 Billion... $15 Billion more than the original estimate - for only 52 F-35s over only a 30 year life-cycle. Man, did they ever blow their initial estimate! Sure hope they hold whoever is responsible for the screw up accountable. I do think that separating the costs is a good idea however, as operating costs are speculative and can skew the purchase cost, and it is possible to take the current operation budget into consideration when estimating the new budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 It is definitely true that accountants include operational costs in budgets. Anyone who wants to practice fiscal conservatism will budget for the worst case scenario, not hide 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost. Attacks against ‘not too bright’ MacKay intensify after AG’s scathing F-35 report Why would you expect those costs to be higher than current costs for the F-18? New aircraft should require less maintenance than ones nearing the end of their operational lives. Fuel costs should be lower on a single engine aircraft using a newer generation more efficient engine. Both aircraft are single pilot so there is no difference in crew costs for the same number of aircraft. The main reason airlines park aircraft in the desert is because old aircraft become too expensive to fuel and maintain. There is a real need to get to the bottom of the fixed costs and I don't have a problem with the opposition pushing to get there but the military isn't an airline trying to figure out its seat mile cost on a certain route. It has to adapt to whatever problems it is given. The opposition has no more of a chrystal ball than the government in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 huh! Presuming on... urgency... are you saying there's no civilian aircraft that could get out there 'fast enough' and provide "escort"? Just what is the actual air-flight time (max) for one of those U.S. F-15s... anyway? and what about UAVs? What about investing in 24/7 UAV reconnaissance for the West Coast... your monitoring and coordination concerns taken care of... yes? What civilian aircraft? You get a bomb scare and start shopping around for bizjets to charter? Most of them aren't much faster than the average airliner and some are slower. The F-15's normal cruise speed is not that much faster but it has the ability to cruise quite a bit faster if necessary. What UAV's would you suggest? I'm not aware of one that cruises at M.80 to M.85, the cruising range of most long range airliners. Most drones are designed to operate at low speeds. The Predator cruises at around 130 kts, a bit less than a 777's normal landing speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Fuel, maintenance, upgrades and weapons are not fixed costs. They will vary according to what we use them for during their lives and what new upgrades and weapons become available or are required for future situations. Every year our provincial government budgets for fighting forest fires. Those budgets are often blown to hell during severe fire seasons. The military is no different. I'm thinkin pilots won't be getting a raise just because they are transitioning from the CF-18 to the F-35 and remember we originally had 138 of them, not 65. So either you don't account for it at all and start from zero or you at the very least make an educate estimate. I would rather they take into account at least some amount of those costs. In any case, it doesn't matter what I would rather. It's standard accounting practice these days and it's the rules according to the Treasury Board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 It is definitely true that accountants include operational costs in budgets. Anyone who wants to practice fiscal conservatism will budget for the worst case scenario, not hide 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost. Attacks against ‘not too bright’ MacKay intensify after AG’s scathing F-35 report They don't even need to do that. Budgeting for anything, when you know there's going to be these expenses, is better than not accounting for it at all. Overbudgeting can be just as bad as not budgeting at all. You need to make a practical balanced budget for these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I honestly don't see how this is such a big deal. If this $10 billion is already being spent on the F-18's why are people wetting themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) So, say we're in a dogfight (lol) and there are six enemy aircraft; we should only shoot down one to save money? Jock: Screw it. I'm going for all six! Ground: It's coming out of your pocket...I'm warning you. Edited April 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 why are people wetting themselves? Because the government lied to parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Because the government lied to parliament. But they didn't really cost the taxpayer anymore money did they? If you're going to go into accounting practices I guess maybe they should have included the full price. But when I go buy a car I don't include the estimated price I'd pay for gas and Insurance throughout the lifetime of the car when I consider the price do I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 So, say we're in a dogfight (lol) and there are six enemy aircraft; we should only shoot down one to save money? Jock: Screw it. I'm going for all six! Ground: It's coming out of your pocket...I'm warning you. just push away from your keyboard - no problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 But when I go buy a car I don't include the estimated price I'd pay for gas and Insurance throughout the lifetime of the car when I consider the price do I? No, you do not. Unless it's a '65 Belair and you're trying to get the wife onboard...then out comes the calculator. But, it is my understanding that this isn't a luxury purchace in spite of the big price tag. Plus, nobody here has come up with a suitable alternative. I'd like Canada to have the best. I assume most would like us to have the best, as well. However, the F-22 isn't for sale. So what's next? Russian? Different voltages, lubricants, fluids (etc...mid air refueling) and everything in Russian might be a bit of a pill for the average English speaking pilot. Euro? Are they really any cheaper? Most European aircraft are also designed with flying in Europe in mind. That is...short range since the airstrip is always close by. So...those dead set against the F-35 for budget reasons and lies...what IS next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 just push away from your keyboard - no problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 No, you do not. Unless it's a '65 Belair and you're trying to get the wife onboard...then out comes the calculator. But, it is my understanding that this isn't a luxury purchace in spite of the big price tag. Plus, nobody here has come up with a suitable alternative. I'd like Canada to have the best. I assume most would like us to have the best, as well. However, the F-22 isn't for sale. So what's next? Russian? Different voltages, lubricants, fluids (etc...mid air refueling) and everything in Russian might be a bit of a pill for the average English speaking pilot. Euro? Are they really any cheaper? Most European aircraft are also designed with flying in Europe in mind. That is...short range since the airstrip is always close by. So...those dead set against the F-35 for budget reasons and lies...what IS next? I hear Saab is coming out with a Hybrid Fighter Jet. I'm sure the Dippers will get behind that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I hear Saab is coming out with a Hybrid Fighter Jet. I'm sure the Dippers will get behind that. Ah, the Swedes. Neat weapons but very Sweden specific. Remember the 'S' tank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 huh! Presuming on... urgency... are you saying there's no civilian aircraft that could get out there 'fast enough' and provide "escort"? Just what is the actual air-flight time (max) for one of those U.S. F-15s... anyway? and what about UAVs? What about investing in 24/7 UAV reconnaissance for the West Coast... your monitoring and coordination concerns taken care of... yes? What civilian aircraft? You get a bomb scare and start shopping around for bizjets to charter? Most of them aren't much faster than the average airliner and some are slower. The F-15's normal cruise speed is not that much faster but it has the ability to cruise quite a bit faster if necessary. What UAV's would you suggest? I'm not aware of one that cruises at M.80 to M.85, the cruising range of most long range airliners. Most drones are designed to operate at low speeds. The Predator cruises at around 130 kts, a bit less than a 777's normal landing speed. the point was, if you have UAVs up you're... already there... and your monitoring/coordination concerns would be addressed. The civilian reference wasn't presuming on "shopping around" - the point was, there are 'civilian equivalencies', particularly in that I don't interpret the urgency you seem to suggest is there with a phoned in bomb-threat to LAX. Urgency? Why? In any case, in this ramp-up to a supposed debate on "defense policy", it would seem to me a player in that policy review, a big player, should be UAVs for reconnaissance of our coastlines/Arctic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 No, you do not. Unless it's a '65 Belair and you're trying to get the wife onboard...then out comes the calculator. But, it is my understanding that this isn't a luxury purchace in spite of the big price tag. Plus, nobody here has come up with a suitable alternative. I'd like Canada to have the best. I assume most would like us to have the best, as well. However, the F-22 isn't for sale. So what's next? Russian? Different voltages, lubricants, fluids (etc...mid air refueling) and everything in Russian might be a bit of a pill for the average English speaking pilot. Euro? Are they really any cheaper? Most European aircraft are also designed with flying in Europe in mind. That is...short range since the airstrip is always close by. So...those dead set against the F-35 for budget reasons and lies...what IS next? I'm not dead set against them... It's the blatant: (a) Deception about the total cost and the lack of transparency and so far,accountability by the masters of "Transparent and Accountable government!"... (b)seeming incompetence by the Minister of Defence to even know what was going on in his department...ie.Who's running things over there,the Keystone Cops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm not dead set against them... It's the blatant: (a) Deception about the total cost and the lack of transparency and so far,accountability by the masters of "Transparent and Accountable government!"... (b)seeming incompetence by the Minister of Defence to even know what was going on in his department...ie.Who's running things over there,the Keystone Cops? OK...so who do we execute and how do we move forward with getting Canada some new aircraft that didn't star in Top Gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 But, it is my Most European aircraft are also designed with flying in Europe in mind. That is...short range since the airstrip is always close by. I agree with the rest of what you say, but both the Eurofighter and Rafale have a larger combat radius than the F-35A, or even the C, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.