F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

Negative Ghostrider……The Typhoon and Riff-Raff have a similar combat radius, with external fuel (tanks), as the F-35 neat (and stealth).

Fully loaded those craft are dogs, too.

[Smallc]

Fully loaded those craft are dogs, too.

The more I read about the F-35, the more I realize it's the only Avaliable option.

[DogOnPorch]

The more I read about the F-35, the more I realize it's the only Avaliable option.

That's why the internal weapons bay is verrrrry attractive to the pilots. Any aircraft with crap hanging off the wings flies 'loaded'. That mean no rolling on one's back or anything involving big G forces.

[Guest Derek L]

apparently only 4 CF-18s were deployed in the Libyan bomb-fest... that did "ramp-up" to 18 for the 3-month Bosniapalooza. A couple of get-sum's over a couple of decades - and you want... more... more than 65!

Not to quibble, but it was 6 Hornets (with a 7th added later) but you still have point, and the low numbers available to deploy overseas is a reflection of the age, number of aircraft we have remaining and prior commitments (NORAD)………We haven’t had the ability to deploy more than eight aircraft (sustained) since the 90s without effecting training and our domestic commitments, and this won’t change with the purchase of 65 F-35s.

The reason was never sent Hornets to Afghanistan, was for much the same reasons, including the then ongoing Hornet upgrade program…….If we had of sent our older Hornets, at the expense of our NORAD commitments, the Americans would have just had to cover our shortages…….no real point.

[Guest Derek L]

Sorry, just being a Wikipedia warrior.

No problem, you can also include the Super Hornet with the EuroFighter/Rafale..........The

F-35C will have a similar profile (in terms of range/weapons) as the F-111 and F-15E……..Of course it will have a fraction of the radar signature, half the flight crew and won’t require a ECM escort or Wild Weasels.

[cybercoma]

And still the opposition screams that the Tories are being spendthrifts

You haven't paid attention to this issue at all, apparently. For the, what, hundredth time, it has to do with the government keeping two sets of books, not being accountable to parliament as they should, and lying about it when caught.

[cybercoma]

The opposition is the government in waiting, I'f they're so smart, let them come up with an estimate.

You're either trolling or clueless. It's not the opposition's responsibility to come up with estimates of government spending and procurement. The government is obliged to follow proper accounting principles, the past recommendations of auditor generals, and the treasury board regulations that were put into place back in 2006. They did none of that, then lied about it to parliament.

[cybercoma]

Box of toothpicks for pilot's mess: $1.99 x 12 x 30 years.

Somehow I doubt you would be laughing if it were a Liberal or NDP government hiding costs from Parliament.

[Wilber]

You're either trolling or clueless. It's not the opposition's responsibility to come up with estimates of government spending and procurement. The government is obliged to follow proper accounting principles, the past recommendations of auditor generals, and the treasury board regulations that were put into place back in 2006. They did none of that, then lied about it to parliament.

Just realistic. If the opposition believes there is a realistic method of making such an estimate, let them educate us ignorant boobs. Any idiot can dream up questions that have no answers. What should we budget for, 30 years of non events or WWIII? You tell me.

[punked]

Just realistic. If the opposition believes there is a realistic method of making such an estimate, let them educate us ignorant boobs. Any idiot can dream up questions that have no answers. What should we budget for, 30 years of non events or WWIII? You tell me.

DND, the AG, and the PBO all made the estimate it exists why would the oppositions estimate be any different?

[cybercoma]

Just realistic. If the opposition believes there is a realistic method of making such an estimate, let them educate us ignorant boobs. Any idiot can dream up questions that have no answers. What should we budget for, 30 years of non events or WWIII? You tell me.

Funny how the PBO and auditor general came up with those estimates just fine, eh? Oh and the government also kept those numbers too, they just didn't share them with the public. Seemed pretty realistic when all those people put those figures together.

[capricorn]

The government is obliged to follow proper accounting principles, the past recommendations of auditor generals, and the treasury board regulations that were put into place back in 2006.

Regulations are meant to cover matters that are static in nature. Regulations cannot possibly provide for every conceivable situation. Regulations always allow for exceptions to the rule. The F-35 is not a common defence acquisition, so common accounting principles don't necessarily apply. In addition, any Treasury Board regulation on government acquisitions would provide an exception that could be applied to this case.

As far as implementing the AG's recommendations, the government has announced is doing just that.

In terms of the operational costs of the fighter jets (that we're already paying out for the CF-18s), the only situation where they would be significant in and of themselves would be if we didn't buy any jets at all because those expenditures would be wiped out.

[Wilber]

Funny how the PBO and auditor general came up with those estimates just fine, eh? Oh and the government also kept those numbers too, they just didn't share them with the public. Seemed pretty realistic when all those people put those figures together.

What estimates? Are you trying to tell me that they have some kind of super clairvoyance that allows them to know future world events, how they will effect our military and what it will cost? This is a simple equipment acquisition, not a declaration of our foreign policy or budget projection for unknown future conflicts for the next three decades.

Look I have no problem with anyone trying to nail down the real fixed costs of this project. I say go for it but demanding budgets for the cost of world events decades into the future is pure politics.

[capricorn]

From the TB contracting policy with regard to exceptions.

10.2 Exceptions

10.2.1 Section 6 of the Government Contracts Regulations contains four exceptions that permit the contracting authority to set aside the requirement to solicit bids. These are:

the need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest;

the estimated expenditure does not exceed

$25,000,

$100,000, where the contract is for the acquisition of architectural, engineering and other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of the construction, repair, renovation or restoration of a work, or

$100,000 where the contract is to be entered into by the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency and is for the acquisition of architectural, engineering or other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of an international development assistance program or project;

the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids; or

only one person or firm is capable of performing the contract.

cont'd

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=14494&section=text

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure why you two are having such a hard time understanding procurement accounting, but spend about 5 mins browsing webpages that come up when you punch in Life-Cycle Costs. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean that there isn't proper accounting for this sort of thing. Also, it's completely unacceptable that the government kept two different sets of numbers on this program. This is about accountability, something principled Conservatives used to stand for. You two are so concerned with doing damage control that you don't even stand for your values any more.

[The_Squid]

This is about accountability, something principled Conservatives used to stand for.

Not to mention fiscal responsibility, which conservatives always claim to be but, in practice, are certainly not.

[DogOnPorch]

Somehow I doubt you would be laughing if it were a Liberal or NDP government hiding costs from Parliament.

Now there you go thinking I'm some sort of Harper supporter. Think again, commie.

[capricorn]

You two are so concerned with doing damage control that you don't even stand for your values any more.

Hey, I'm a proud member of the so called "booster club". Just like you're a proud member of the anti-Harper/Conservatives club. In accounting terms, one cancels out the other.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not sure why you two are having such a hard time understanding procurement accounting, but spend about 5 mins browsing webpages that come up when you punch in Life-Cycle Costs. Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean that there isn't proper accounting for this sort of thing. Also, it's completely unacceptable that the government kept two different sets of numbers on this program. This is about accountability, something principled Conservatives used to stand for. You two are so concerned with doing damage control that you don't even stand for your values any more.

Though I agree that some of costs that are being debated over, like projected boot laces usage and salaries can be estimated out to ~30-40 years from today, based on past costs, how realistically does a Government, of any stripe, project realistically the intended usage of the F-35 over the next 30-40 years?

In terms of weapons expenditures and the toll, varying degrees of high/medium/low tempo operations can take on the lifespan of combat aircraft, you’re left with a mugs game………Several months of high tempo operations take years off of projected lifespan of airframes and engines……..

Tell me how many combat deployments the F-35s will be involved in from ~2020 to ~2050, and I’ll tell you how many airframes we’ll retire early and how many ~$30 million dollar engines we’ll go through, to say nothing of bombs, missiles, bullets and fuel.

[cybercoma]

Though I agree that some of costs that are being debated over, like projected boot laces usage and salaries can be estimated out to ~30-40 years from today, based on past costs, how realistically does a Government, of any stripe, project realistically the intended usage of the F-35 over the next 30-40 years?

In terms of weapons expenditures and the toll, varying degrees of high/medium/low tempo operations can take on the lifespan of combat aircraft, you’re left with a mugs game………Several months of high tempo operations take years off of projected lifespan of airframes and engines……..

Tell me how many combat deployments the F-35s will be involved in from ~2020 to ~2050, and I’ll tell you how many airframes we’ll retire early and how many ~$30 million dollar engines we’ll go through, to say nothing of bombs, missiles, bullets and fuel.

You still don't get it. The maintenance and operation costs have been and are required to be estimated. The auditor general estimated them. The PBO estimated them. Norway has estimated them. NATO estimates them. Businesses everywhere have been estimating them for decades. But most importantly, the government estimated them, but refused to divulge them. That's the problem.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure as hell don't want a government that keeps two sets of books. I don't give a damn which party that is.

This is completely unacceptable and if we don't hold them accountable for lying to parliament and lying to Canadians then it's our own damn fault when politicians lie to us.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

You still don't get it. The maintenance and operation costs have been and are required to be estimated. The auditor general estimated them. The PBO estimated them. Norway has estimated them. NATO estimates them. Businesses everywhere have been estimating them for decades. But most importantly, the government estimated them, but refused to divulge them. That's the problem.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure as hell don't want a government that keeps two sets of books. I don't give a damn which party that is.

This is completely unacceptable and if we don't hold them accountable for lying to parliament and lying to Canadians then it's our own damn fault when politicians lie to us.

And I question how these other guys project actual usage and world events for the next ~40 years?

Care to enlighten us?

[The_Squid]

And I question how these other guys project actual usage and world events for the next ~40 years?

Care to enlighten us?

What don't you understand about estimating costs over the life of a plane?? This concept isn't new or difficult to grasp.....

Edited April 12, 2012 by The_Squid

[Wilber]

You still don't get it. The maintenance and operation costs have been and are required to be estimated. The auditor general estimated them. The PBO estimated them. Norway has estimated them. NATO estimates them. Businesses everywhere have been estimating them for decades. But most importantly, the government estimated them, but refused to divulge them. That's the problem.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure as hell don't want a government that keeps two sets of books. I don't give a damn which party that is.

This is completely unacceptable and if we don't hold them accountable for lying to parliament and lying to Canadians then it's our own damn fault when politicians lie to us.

Estimated them based on what? Stick to the procurement angle. You have some credibility there.

[cybercoma]

And I question how these other guys project actual usage and world events for the next ~40 years?

Care to enlighten us?

It has already been posted, man. You're really going to make me go back and find it again? It's right on the DND's website.

I'll do it to show you how the DND costed it vs how the PBO costed it, but seriously... can't you just accept that there are accounting principle to forecast these things? How they've projected it doesn't matter.

The fact is it's supposed to be done, this way a business (in this case government, but more importantly parliament) can plan as best as possible to be able to financially support their procurement for the entire life of the thing being purchased.

The point is that the government had those numbers and knew what it would cost, but refused to provide them to parliament. Parliament needs these numbers to make an informed decision about the procurement, but this was kept from them. The government kept two sets of books. One to divulge to "the people" and another with the true costs (the one you want details on).

So anyway, I'll go dig up the DND page that has the full explanation of how the costing is done if you really want me to.

[Guest Derek L]

What don't you understand about estimating costs over the life of a plane?? This concept isn't new or difficult to grasp.....

I obviously can’t grasp this concept…….How many wars will Canada be involved in from ~2020 to ~2050?