F-35 Purchase

[Smallc]

If someone asks me how much it costs me to have a smartphone, I don't tell them $35/month.

You got a new smart phone? How much more is it than the old one?

That's what you're going to get, and you know it. You don't need a cell phone. Whether or not we buy new jets, we're still going to need jets.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Because the taxpayers don't have to pay the O&M costs?

They do anyway. That's the point. If the opposition would come at it that way, I'd be fine. There's a reason the government didn't want to put the numbers out. This reaction is exactly why. It's the same reason no government has done it.

[Wilber]

Seriously... I don't understand why you insist on only citing the difference.

If I'm paying a $35/month cellphone bill and I go buy a smartphone that costs me $70/month, then I need to fund $70/month. The smartphone isn't costing me $35/month. If someone asks me how much it costs me to have a smartphone, I don't tell them $35/month. I tell them it costs $70/month. When I decide whether I can afford a smartphone or not, I don't just look at whether I can afford $35/month. I look at whether I can afford $70/month. Why? Because $70/month is the true cost. What I'm currently paying is inconsequential because I need to be able to pay $70/month for the duration of my contract.

With that logic, we won't be buying anything. You can't have a new smart phone at old dumb phone prices. If that's what you want, better get another dumb phone.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Wilber

[punked]

Seriously... I don't understand why you insist on only citing the difference.

If I'm paying a $35/month cellphone bill and I go buy a smartphone that costs me $70/month, then I need to fund $70/month. The smartphone isn't costing me $35/month. If someone asks me how much it costs me to have a smartphone, I don't tell them $35/month. I tell them it costs $70/month. When I decide whether I can afford a smartphone or not, I don't just look at whether I can afford $35/month. I look at whether I can afford $70/month. Why? Because $70/month is the true cost. What I'm currently paying is inconsequential because I need to be able to pay $70/month for the duration of my contract.

But you paid 200 up front for that smart phone and any good account knows that is the only cost ever. Even if your plan goes from 35 dollars to 70 dollars a month the Conservatives only want to talk about that extra 200 dollars up front not the 840 dollars a year that is the real cost of your phone.

[The_Squid]

But you paid 200 up front for that smart phone and any good account knows that is the only cost ever. Even if your plan goes from 35 dollars to 70 dollars a month the Conservatives only want to talk about that extra 200 dollars up front not the 840 dollars a year that is the real cost of your phone.

Bingo! That's the proper analogy.

Edited April 13, 2012 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

But you paid 200 up front for that smart phone and any good account knows that is the only cost ever. Even if your plan goes from 35 dollars to 70 dollars a month the Conservatives only want to talk about that extra 200 dollars up front not the 840 dollars a year that is the real cost of your phone.

Wow. Lets say that yo have a choice. You pay $200 for a new phone with a $70 a month contract, or you keep the current one, also at $70 a month. There's the risk the old one will stop working, so you buy the new one, for a net cost of $200. Yes, you're still paying $70 a month, but your costs haven't increased, and it you hadn't bough the phone, they wouldn't have decreased. Therefore, your net cost is?......

[cybercoma]

Whatever you say, Smallc. I give up. Even Conservative reporters are criticizing the government for the way they've handled this file. If you want to sit here and rationalize the way they've lied to Canadians, fill your boots. The fact of the matter is you're condoning the government hiding costs from parliament, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Smallc]

Whatever you say, Smallc. I give up. Even Conservative reporters are criticizing the government for the way they've handled this file. If you want to sit here and rationalize the way they've lied to Canadians, fill your boots.

I'm telling you what this is actually costing. You continue to gloss over it. This program will not have a net cost of $25B. To say otherwise is to be completely dishonest.

And why would I care what conservative reporters are saying? They're trying to sell stories...and I'm not a conservative.

The fact of the matter is you're condoning the government hiding costs from parliament, whether you want to admit it or not.

Costs weren't hidden from parliament. This particular project's life cycle costs were kept a secret, yes, but the DND budgets and estimates for procurement, operations, maintenance, personnel, and readiness were all available to them. They rejected them in the budget...and then they lost the election.

What I care about is competent management. At present, these are the most competent managers available.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

But the Conservatives point out that when the Liberals were in power none of their defence announcements included such mundane expenses. Indeed, the Liberals went to great lengths to keep such figures out of the debate over the use of Defence Department Challenger jets when former auditor general Sheila Fraser blasted their use in 2003.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/83754-f-35-could-crash-tories-spending-plans

And before you accuse me of saying it's okay because the Liberals different, remember, they're my party of choice.

[Smallc]

I know, it's the Sun, but:

"We could, I suppose, have gone through the motions of having a full competition in Canada, but in some respects it would've been meaningless," Pratt said, suggesting current fighter models would be out of date by the time the F-35 was in its prime.

He added that only the F-35 meets the key Canadian goal of full interoperability with the United States.

"If we want NORAD to continue, then it would be in our interests to ensure that the planes of both countries can talk to each other and interoperate completely," Pratt said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/12/competition-to-replace-cf-18-not-on-liberal-radar-before-2010

[eyeball]

It doesn't accurately reflect the net cost. It takes into consideration far too many costs that we're already going to have to pay anyway.

Whatever it's doing I hope to hell it's making more people reconsider buying any kind of jet at all.

Why should be flaming obvious enough in the wake of a decade of fruitless wars that has left the planet as flat-assed broke as it is insecure.

[Smallc]

Whatever it's doing I hope to hell it's making more people reconsider buying any kind of jet at all.

The major purpose of this jet is for out own defence and sovereignty. If it was for expeditionary wars, we'd be buying more than 65 (probably in the 100 - 120 range).

[cybercoma]

Go ahead and continue to ignore the fact that whole-life costing is the standard for these decision-making processes. While you're at it, continue to ignore the fact that the whole-life cost was denied to those responsible for the public purse, even though the government had been using those costs in their internal paperwork. Don't ever complain about a government that isn't accountable to parliament ever again, since evidently you don't really give a damn about parliamentary democracy, if in your opinion the ends justify the means.

Edited April 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Go ahead and continue to ignore the fact that whole-life costing is the standard for these decision-making processes. While you're at it, continue to ignore the fact that the whole-life cost was denied to those responsible for the public purse, even though the government had been using those costs. Don't ever complain about a government that isn't accountable to parliament ever again, since evidently you don't really give a damn about parliamentary democracy, if in your opinion the ends justify the means.

The ends don't always justify the means. This just isn't a big deal. The information wasn't important to parliament. The only use it has was as an estimate from which to construct future DND budgets. The Conservatives should have given the information to Parliament, but they aren't the first people not to do it, and now that we see what the opposition and media is doing with it (basically talking out their asses, without bothering to include any facts), I don't really blame the government.

The reality is, we need new jets, we need them to last, and these are our only option.

Why didn't you care like this when the NSPS was announced? That was nothing but acquisition costs.

Our democracy is important, as is the idea that parliament is supreme, but in this case, there was no harm from the omission of rather useless information.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

Parliament didn't ask for the whole-life cost of the ships. When the contracts were announced for building the ships, the reports were framed around how much the contracts were worth to the shipbuilders. That's still not what the ships cost to Canadian taxpayers over the life of the ships. If parliament had asked for those numbers, then I would expect the government to give them those numbers. Still, you're completely ignoring the fact that whether the government has done it this way, whole-life costing, or not doesn't matter at all. That's standard accounting practice these days to avoid underestimating how much money is needed to sustain the equipment for the entire duration of its use. The problem is that the government when asked specifically for whole-life costs refused to provide them to parliament. If they're supposed to be accountable to parliament, then that is one of the worst things that a government can do in a parliamentary democracy and it's crazy that you would condone it.

[cybercoma]

Our democracy is important, as is the idea that parliament is supreme, but in this case, there was no harm from the omission of rather useless information.

In this case. You don't think it sets a precedent?

[eyeball]

The major purpose of this jet is for out own defence and sovereignty. If it was for expeditionary wars, we'd be buying more than 65 (probably in the 100 - 120 range).

In light of so many Canadians condoning and shrugging off the government's deliberately misleading them I would suggest that we don't really have anything left that's worth defending.

[cybercoma]

Why didn't you care like this when the NSPS was announced? That was nothing but acquisition costs.

I don't care about a lot of things until they're brought to my attention.

[Smallc]

In this case. You don't think it sets a precedent?

Not really. If Canadians care about this, then the government will have been punished. IF they don't, and the government does this with something they actually are about, they'll be punished.

In light of so many Canadians condoning and shrugging off the government's deliberately misleading them I would suggest that we don't really have anything left that's worth defending.

WEll, I'd suggest you need a reality check.

I don't care about a lot of things until they're brought to my attention.

I'm sure the NDP is aware of it...and yet they say nothing. I'm sure once we know what kind of technology and weapons will be packed on the ships (with the available budget, it will be a pile), they'll hate that too, even though they claim to be for it now.

The simple fact is they know that Canadians are stupid (as are most all people), and when you say the words stealth jets, they have visions of us bombing people in the middle east.

[DogOnPorch]

The most striking thing I'm noticing about the F-35 is how small it is. Next to an F-18, for example. That's a good feature in air combat. Compare to the largest interceptor ever built...the Tu-28 Fiddler. Much different missions, of course. But, still...yeesh. That's a big aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28

Edited April 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Wilber]

In light of so many Canadians condoning and shrugging off the government's deliberately misleading them I would suggest that we don't really have anything left that's worth defending.

You would. We live in such a shit hole after all.

[eyeball]

You would. We live in such a shit hole after all.

That would be bullshit and we live on a mountain of it.

[DogOnPorch]

That would be bullshit and we live on a mountain of it.

That did it. I'm phoning the Gestapo.

[jacee]

The information wasn't important to parliament.

The Conservatives should have given the information to Parliament, but they aren't the first people not to do it, ...

Our democracy is important, as is the idea that parliament is supreme, but in this case, there was no harm from the omission of rather useless information.

Yes they should have given the information to parliament.

That is the whole point, and the only point.

Not only is it the law now, it was directly requested.

The harm is in misleading parliament and the people.

And the harm is done.

The Tories will wear it, same as the Liberals are wearing their disgrace.

Obviously Tories don't mind wearing their disgrace, because it is now apparent that all they ever aspired to is to be 'no worse than Liberals.

Sad that ... but it's the truth: Harper supporters like you, smallc, will support anything they do as long as the Liberals did it too.

I find that pathetic, that the only standard of the Tories is to be as bad as the Liberals, because that means all the Tories aspire to is to be thrown out of office in disgrace, like the Liberals.

That's fine by me, but I would have thought Harper supporters would have higher hopes and expectations for them.

Edited April 13, 2012 by jacee

[Smallc]

Somewhere in this thread, I indicated that I used to be a Liberal. I still would be if they were interesting in being a party of governing. They don't realize it, but they haven't been for years. Only the Conservatives, at current, are a party of governing.