F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

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.

How many wars will be involved in though?

[cybercoma]

How many wars will be involved in though?

It doesn't matter. Those are external costs that will be decided by Parliament when we determine that we are going to participate in war.

Here is the comparison. It was easier to find than I thought.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/comparison-comparaison-eng.asp

Note that the PBO's estimate was peer-reviewed by 3 independent organizations. One of those was in the US.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

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.

You can dig up all the accounting principles you want. None of them will mean a rats ass when it comes to the actual cost of operating these aircraft over the next several decades. How do you budget for the cost of conflicts that haven't happened? It's a simple question, you should have a simple answer. These machines are built for the purpose of making war, not some airline that is flying fixed routes with crews that are focused on saving fuel by always flying long range cruise at optimum altitude.

[Guest Derek L]

It doesn't matter. Those are external costs that will be decided by Parliament when we determine that we are going to participate in war.

Here is the comparison. It was easier to find than I thought.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/comparison-comparaison-eng.asp

Note that the PBO's estimate was peer-reviewed by 3 independent organizations. One of those was in the US.

Nowhere does it say the projected expenditures of weapons, fuel or increased maintenance/attrition replacements on that link due to increased usage………

You dismiss these as outside costs, but wish for “transparency” on costs that we’re already paying? Pot-Kettle-Black

[cybercoma]

Wilber, I already answered the question. When we go to war, we budget for the additional usage then.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Wilber, I already answered the question. When we go to war, we budget for it.

And what impact would going to war several times, on the same scale of conflicts we’ve been involved in for the last ~20 years, have on the projected maintenance & support aspects of the allotted budget for the Hornet replacement?

[eyeball]

So why can Norway, population 4.8 million, a tidily run Scandinavian country, afford these jets, while Canada, according to some of the Left, can't possibly afford the same number plus 12?

I'm betting dividends from Norway's nationalized energy program...meanwhile in Bananada.

[cybercoma]

And what impact would going to war several times, on the same scale of conflicts we’ve been involved in for the last ~20 years, have on the projected maintenance & support aspects of the allotted budget for the Hornet replacement?

Seriously? Maybe waldo will be along and have the patience to go around in circles with you for pages. But I'm not going to do it. Edited April 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[Signals.Cpl]

Wilber, I already answered the question. When we go to war, we budget for the additional usage then.

But then we would be lying to the public. The Canadian public wants all the costs up front right? But if we go to war, all of the numbers that the AG gave out would be wrong, so he better give out the right estimate based on the number of operations we will be involved in as well as the future economic situation in Canada, because once again if the economy goes down the drain, the Military can cut the numbers and this would mean less operations and exercises and less support crews and infrastructure.

[Wilber]

Wilber, I already answered the question. When we go to war, we budget for the additional usage then.

When it comes to maintenance.

•

The PBO states that “Although the data that is publicly available is not sufficient to form the basis of a model as that used to forecast acquisition costs, to the extent that the data is available, the percentages returned by this model are believed to be reasonable.” However, the 6.4% is based on unspecified data and an unknown cost estimating relationship model.

Sounds like someone who is really sure of themselves.

When we go to war, we will need something to go to war with.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what impact would going to war several times, on the same scale of conflicts we’ve been involved in for the last ~20 years, have on the projected maintenance & support aspects of the allotted budget for the Hornet replacement?

You mean like this:

OTTAWA, May 18 (UPI) -- The Canadian government has ordered 1,300 replacement laser-guided bombs to use in its NATO mission in Libya, defense officials in Ottawa said.

Since the United Nations authorized NATO to impose a no-fly zone to curb Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's military from harming civilians at the end of March, Canadian CF-18 fighter jets have flown about 300 sorties, dropping so-called smart bombs on artillery positions, the Ottawa Citizen reported.

While the defense department wouldn't disclose how many bombs have been used in Libya or the order for new bombs, it's known they are 500-pound Paveway GBU-12 bombs.

Various defense groups say each of the bombs cost about $100,000, the report said.

[The_Squid]

And what impact would going to war several times, on the same scale of conflicts we’ve been involved in for the last ~20 years, have on the projected maintenance & support aspects of the allotted budget for the Hornet replacement?

Ummmm.... Who cares?? It's called an "estimate" for a reason. Do we need to provide a definition for you?

[Wilber]

Ummmm.... Who cares?? It's called an "estimate" for a reason. Do we need to provide a definition for you?

50 billion. There's an estimate. Happy now?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

50 billion. There's an estimate. Happy now?

[bush_cheney2004]

50 billion. There's an estimate. Happy now?

LOL! Yea, just think of it as another expensive Gun Registry that has stealth.

[DogOnPorch]

LOL! Yea, just think of it as another expensive Gun Registry that has stealth.

Gosh, you two. When does your blue show start?

Edited April 12, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

When we go to war, we will need something to go to war with.

That's always been the reason why I've thought we shouldn't have anything, to deter going to war.

Having something if war comes here is a different matter which is why I think we should keep the means to produce enriched uranium. We should never give up that capacity until such time as everyone else gets rid of theirs and the capacity to invade us.

[Guest Derek L]

Seriously? Maybe waldo will be along and have the patience to go around in circles with you for pages. But I'm not going to do it.

Seeing your edit above my prior post, you concede that if we went to war, we’d have to budget (i.e. pay more) for additional costs associated with increased usage, hence, making the current projected costs, null and void. Is this a correct assumption on my part?

Well we’re talking assumptions, based on current sunk and budgeted support costs (Salaries, airbase maintenance etc) for our current Hornet fleet, what do think will differ once we purchase the F-35, or another aircraft if you prefer (Super Hornet, Rafale etc). Will pilots make a different wage between aircraft? Will Canadian airbases have to change the frequency of resurfacing of runways and aprons, not to mention ploughing snow, based on differing aircraft?

[Guest Derek L]

Ummmm.... Who cares?? It's called an "estimate" for a reason. Do we need to provide a definition for you?

Who cares about estimates and projecting costs? I’m not the one wetting my pants over the F-35.…..

So to clarify, you’re alright if we can’t actually project the entire costs associated with purchasing, then operating the F-35 until ~2050?

[Guest Derek L]

You mean like this:

OTTAWA, May 18 (UPI) -- The Canadian government has ordered 1,300 replacement laser-guided bombs to use in its NATO mission in Libya, defense officials in Ottawa said.

Since the United Nations authorized NATO to impose a no-fly zone to curb Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's military from harming civilians at the end of March, Canadian CF-18 fighter jets have flown about 300 sorties, dropping so-called smart bombs on artillery positions, the Ottawa Citizen reported.

While the defense department wouldn't disclose how many bombs have been used in Libya or the order for new bombs, it's known they are 500-pound Paveway GBU-12 bombs.

Various defense groups say each of the bombs cost about $100,000, the report said.

Now do that several times over the life of the aircraft, added to vastly increased wear and tear, and projections clearly go out the window.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

Will pilots make a different wage between aircraft? Will Canadian airbases have to change the frequency of resurfacing of runways and aprons, not to mention ploughing snow, based on differing aircraft?

I was hearing some interview today about the number of Canadian companies that will go tits-up if this doesn't work out. But, since the big money is just being flushed down the loo...never to be seen or taxed again...

[bush_cheney2004]

...Having something if war comes here is a different matter which is why I think we should keep the means to produce enriched uranium. We should never give up that capacity until such time as everyone else gets rid of theirs and the capacity to invade us.

Canada does not produce highly enriched (weapons grade) uranium by treaty. You have already "given it up". Canada only produces lower grade forms for the fuel cycle (e.g. uranium hexafluoride), and must import highly enriched uranium from nuclear weapons countries. An isotope company like Nordion gets the good stuff from America, France, or Russia.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada does not produce highly enriched (weapons grade) uranium by treaty. You have already "given it up". Canada only produces lower grade forms for the fuel cycle (e.g. uranium hexafluoride), and must import highly enriched uranium from nuclear weapons countries. An isotope company like Nordion gets the good stuff from America, France, or Russia.

Hewers of wood. Drawers of water, we is.

[cybercoma]

It doesn't make the projected costs null and void at all. For the last time, active participation in war is an additional cost over and above those costs. Those projected costs don't disappear all of a sudden because we go to war. When parliament decides to engage in war, they need to budget for it. They need to set aside additional money for war operations. That too will need to go to parliament for approval, just as the initial procurement does. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry. But I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself for pages and pages because you either don't understand or, what's more likely, refuse to understand what I'm saying.

[cybercoma]

Just to make it clearer, if we low-ball the life-cycle costs, then that puts us behind the 8-ball when we need to spend additional money that is unexpected.