bush_cheney2004 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) 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. Agreed....a little war here or there can really blow the budget! During Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999), Canada ran out of bombs (again). So the good lads would jump in a jeep and drive over to the big American storage depot at Aviano to go shopping. The American were happy to charge all those new GBUs to Canada's credit card. Gift wrapping was extra. The smart bombs were so expensive and in short supply, a Canadian sergeant figured out how to use old style bombs with incompatible laser codes that the Americans were mistakenly going to scrap. As the stocks of modern GBU bomb-guidance kits began to dwindle for all NATO forces, the allies were compelled to use less-than-modern guidance kits. This brought about a great deal of extra work for all national contingents in Aviano as they required an individual laser code to be manually ‘burned’ into their circuits. Faced with this problem, Sergeant Neal, on his own ini- tiative, became the local expert on this guidance system. Through tireless research he determined that the Americans were incorrectly using their own system to burn laser codes, and then tactfully showed the USAF armament technicians how to do it properly. This enabled the Americans to salvage over 90 percent of the bombs previously considered to be unserviceable, sav- ing them literally tens of millions of dollars. Of greater importance, Sergeant Neal’s initiative and ingenuity saved the bombing campaign from suffering critical shortages, as bomb stocks had been severely depleted by this point. His efforts resulted in replacement bombs quickly becoming available where few had existed before. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OOOB9pHzk8cJ:www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/55-61-eng.pdf+canada+kosovo+bombs+technician+codes+aviano+american&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgDnnKls_uM1W9KT46rB-a3cyZE3fQrRiN3v_SSdbYuNHdW1xPEBezCUukKHu2xVlOxUNpqZyxU9jQh7z626x-crkTAN2gihb89G030s2JuuvRUTl9XxitMCs-xkkywXa7Kmi6q&sig=AHIEtbROgszfAkXli0Y4Gi_JdsYSfjUw5Q Edited April 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 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. They don’t disappear? They most certainly do…….Sending just 6 aircraft to go bomb a despot on the other side of the world not only decreases the lifespan of the said 6 aircraft, but throws scheduled maintenance out of whack and training, but also increases the usage of the entire fleet that doesn’t participate in said conflict………Hence projected ~20 year (~35 year) costs now become ~19 year (~34 year) costs, hence throwing today’s estimates off kilter. And though you don’t like “getting personal”, I do indeed have an understanding of the concept, of how fleet maintenance planning for military aircraft works, both at a squadron/wing level and an entire fleet upgrade performed at a manufactures, depot level. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Agreed....a little war here or there can really blow the budget! During Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999), Canada ran out of bombs (again). So the good lads would jump in a jeep and drive over to the big American storage depot at Aviano to go shopping. The American were happy to charge all those new GBUs to Canada's credit card. Gift wrapping was extra. The smart bombs were so expensive and in short supply, a Canadian sergeant figured out how to use old style bombs with incompatible laser codes that the Americans were mistakenly going to scrap. As the stocks of modern GBU bomb-guidance kits began to dwindle for all NATO forces, the allies were compelled to use less-than-modern guidance kits. This brought about a great deal of extra work for all national contingents in Aviano as they required an individual laser code to be manually ‘burned’ into their circuits. Faced with this problem, Sergeant Neal, on his own ini- tiative, became the local expert on this guidance system. Through tireless research he determined that the Americans were incorrectly using their own system to burn laser codes, and then tactfully showed the USAF armament technicians how to do it properly. This enabled the Americans to salvage over 90 percent of the bombs previously considered to be unserviceable, sav- ing them literally tens of millions of dollars. Of greater importance, Sergeant Neal’s initiative and ingenuity saved the bombing campaign from suffering critical shortages, as bomb stocks had been severely depleted by this point. His efforts resulted in replacement bombs quickly becoming available where few had existed before. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OOOB9pHzk8cJ:www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/55-61-eng.pdf+canada+kosovo+bombs+technician+codes+aviano+american&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgDnnKls_uM1W9KT46rB-a3cyZE3fQrRiN3v_SSdbYuNHdW1xPEBezCUukKHu2xVlOxUNpqZyxU9jQh7z626x-crkTAN2gihb89G030s2JuuvRUTl9XxitMCs-xkkywXa7Kmi6q&sig=AHIEtbROgszfAkXli0Y4Gi_JdsYSfjUw5Q More pointedly, after we had our excursions of the 90s, the strain put on the already technically dated Hornet fleet, coupled with attrition loses, saw our fleet reduced by more than one 1/3rd by the early 2000s. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 More pointedly, after we had our excursions of the 90s, the strain put on the already technically dated Hornet fleet, coupled with attrition loses, saw our fleet reduced by more than one 1/3rd by the early 2000s. Well, most people have never seen these platforms deployed and engaged in high tempo operations. Cannabalizing parts just to keep some flying is common, and a vicious cycle begins that ultimately decrements total available assets. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Well, most people have never seen these platforms deployed and engaged in high tempo operations. Cannabalizing parts just to keep some flying is common, and a vicious cycle begins that ultimately decrements total available assets. Exactly, then add in already “mature” aircraft to the equation, then add aircraft flown in such a profile that finite tolerances are pushed to the limit (and then some), coupled with being used in harsh environments and watch the lifespan drop……..I know from experience not only from our CH-124s, but from my time on the CH-46 DCU team……… upgraded Phrogs in the late 90s, started meeting a much earlier than anticipated death after the high tempo of the second Persian excursion only a few years later. Salt water, sand and the cumulative hard thumps played their toll…….. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 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. Everything is accounted for, these additional costs are accounted for in the O&M budget within DND's annual budget. the augument is not if we should account for it, but rather it is accounted for twice, once during the orginal contract as required by the AG and once by DND annual budget. And by appling these new rules, what happens when the orginal guess is short, how do they do to increase funds, do they need to revist the entire purchase and what happens at the end of 35 years and there is a surplus where does it go... Currently as a DND annual budget if they run short other parts of the budget are shifted over to make up the difference, you can't do this if it's already part of the purchase contract...there is no flexibility. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
madmax Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Army Guy. I don't know what to say to you other then its the Government that doesn't have its ducks in a row. If they government actually understood and knew what it was doing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Somewhere along the lines there is a communications breakdown and it seems half the time the conservatives are pulling the trigger then backtracking. The Opposition is asking questions. THat is normal. No one has to agree with the opposition, but the Government should be able to clearly and competently answer the questions on such an important purchase. No one has to like the answer... but it has to make sense. Something missing from the discussion, when you sound more on the ball then the minister. Quote
madmax Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Well, most people have never seen these platforms deployed and engaged in high tempo operations. Cannabalizing parts just to keep some flying is common, and a vicious cycle begins that ultimately decrements total available assets. Correct Quote
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Shrinking airforces are thereform forr western democracies, it seems. Australia, who were to buy 100, will probably buy only 80. Denmark and the Netherlands are both downsizing. Ditto for the UK and Italy. That said, I'm up for spending $15B for 100 jets and infrastructure. If Australia, with a smaller land mass and a smaller population is buying 100, how is it we think 65 is sufficient? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Somehow I doubt you would be laughing if it were a Liberal or NDP government hiding costs from Parliament. Hidden in the budget. Great place to hide stuff... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 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. Nonsense. They took the position that ongoing, permanent DND costs were not an integral part of the acquisition of these aircraft. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
capricorn Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 The Opposition is asking questions. THat is normal. No one has to agree with the opposition, but the Government should be able to clearly and competently answer the questions on such an important purchase. No one has to like the answer... but it has to make sense. Something missing from the discussion, when you sound more on the ball then the minister. Excellent observation madmax. I've learned more about this acquisition right here from posters on all sides of the issue than I learned either from the opposition, the media or the government. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 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. It's hard to get upset about what basically amounts to nothing of substance. All the costs have always been accounted for. The only difference between the way the Tories explained it and the way the accountants want it done is the Tories separated out the cost of acquiring THESE planes and listed them. The ongoing, permanent costs of the RCAF were accounted for in the budget, but the costs specific to this possible acquisition were stated separately. I simply don't have an issue with that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Not to mention fiscal responsibility, which conservatives always claim to be but, in practice, are certainly not. You understand that nothing they've done changes the actual costs, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) If Australia, with a smaller land mass and a smaller population is buying 100, how is it we think 65 is sufficient? They're the United States to New Zealand's Canada. Australia doesn't actually know how many or what they're buying anymore. Edited April 12, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) 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. I don't see any lie. Now when Dalton McGuinty promised in every commercial that he wouldn't raise my taxes and then raised them right after election, I saw that as a lie. When Trudeau ran an entire election campaign against Stanfield's price controls, then brought them in, I saw that as a lie. When Trudeau ran a whole campaign against Clark's gas tax, then implemented it, I saw that as a lie. I saw almost every statement Jean Chretien ever made as a lie. And I see him as a corrupt thief, to boot. I saw Mulroney as a sleazy liar and crook. I saw Paul Martin as a liar and a coward. I see my local mayor as a liar and a crook. And you're screaming to high heaven about accounting practices? Edited April 12, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 But then we would be lying to the public. The Canadian public wants all the costs up front right? I think all the Canadian public cares about is that these are the right jets. As for cost, they want to know what the jets cost to buy. Throwing in the cost of dental surgery on the not-yet-born-son of a pilot who is currently in grade three just confuses things. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
capricorn Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 It's hard to get upset about what basically amounts to nothing of substance. All the costs have always been accounted for. The only difference between the way the Tories explained it and the way the accountants want it done is the Tories separated out the cost of acquiring THESE planes and listed them. The ongoing, permanent costs of the RCAF were accounted for in the budget, but the costs specific to this possible acquisition were stated separately. I simply don't have an issue with that. The fallout from all of this is that it throws a monkey wrench into all future planned and ongoing military equipment purchases. For starters, a number of accountants will have to be recruited to accomplish the additional computations. Another thing, if marrying the capital costs with operating and related costs now applies to military equipment, would the same be a requirement in the case of all major purchases by every government department and agency? For example, vehicle purchases, bulk IT equipment, office furniture, etc.? I would think senior federal bureaucrats are having discussions and asking questions along these lines. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
mentalfloss Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 I don't see any lie. Now when Dalton McGuinty promised in every commercial that he wouldn't raise my taxes and then raised them right after election, I saw that as a lie. When Trudeau ran an entire election campaign against Stanfield's price controls, then brought them in, I saw that as a lie. When Trudeau ran a whole campaign against Clark's gas tax, then implemented it, I saw that as a lie. I saw almost every statement Jean Chretien ever made as a lie. And I see him as a corrupt thief, to boot. I saw Mulroney as a sleazy liar and crook. I saw Paul Martin as a liar and a coward. I see my local mayor as a liar and a crook. And you're screaming to high heaven about accounting practices? No one forgives a politician of any stripe for misleading the public. Quote
Argus Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) No one forgives a politician of any stripe for misleading the public. Of course they do. Trudeau ran a whole campaign on the wage and price control thing, lied about it, instituted them, and got elected again afterwards. McGuinty's huge lie about not raising taxes didn't stop him from getting re-elected again either. Chretien lied about Free Trade and the GST and got re-elected too. Canadians don't care if you lie to them. They pretty much expect it. Edited April 12, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 would the same be a requirement in the case of all major purchases by every government department and agency? For example, vehicle purchases, bulk IT equipment, office furniture, etc.? I would think senior federal bureaucrats are having discussions and asking questions along these lines. Yeah, none of this really makes any sense, does it? I think the AG has just created a monster that does nothing but pump out scary, misleading, numbers. Quote
mentalfloss Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) Of course they do. Trudeau ran a whole campaign on the wage and price control thing, lied about it, instituted them, and got elected again afterwards. McGuinty's huge lie about not raising taxes didn't stop him from getting re-elected again either. Chretien lied about Free Trade and the GST and got re-elected too. Canadians don't care if you lie to them. They pretty much expect it. Sorry, I meant to say that no one should forgive a politician for misleading the public. It also depends on the degree of harm caused by the lie. McGuinty's tax reform and Chretien's free trade shenanigans can be assessed on their own merit (or demerit), but hiding $10 Billion is a pretty heinous thing to do. Edited April 12, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Posted April 12, 2012 When it comes to maintenance. • Sounds like someone who is really sure of themselves. When we go to war, we will need something to go to war with. A prayer? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Posted April 12, 2012 I think all the Canadian public cares about is that these are the right jets. As for cost, they want to know what the jets cost to buy. Throwing in the cost of dental surgery on the not-yet-born-son of a pilot who is currently in grade three just confuses things. I agree with you 100%, what I find problematic is when people claim we need to have 100% of the cost in and then switch the tune that some cost are unforeseeable. Seems people pick and choose on what to add as long as it benefits their side of the argument. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Wilber Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Yeah, none of this really makes any sense, does it? I think the AG has just created a monster that does nothing but pump out scary, misleading, numbers. Ya but think of the jobs it will create. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.