F-35 Purchase

[punked]

No way....Canada (and other nations) are already getting a pass on paying the huge F-35 R&D costs, funding domestic training assets, weapons suite qualification, etc. Canada would be on the outside looking in.

I tend to agree with this. We just aren't putting up enough development money to get the big contracts. However ever if we put up the money we don't have the infrastructure to handle the bigger contracts. We will get the crumbs of small software contracts and whatever American overflow might happen but nothing near the costs of purchase.

Edited April 15, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

I think if our MOU partners are not going to honor a contract we signed with them, we should reconsider getting deeper in business with them that is for sure.

These contracts are clearly predicated on us purchasing the F-35.…….And really, Canada has precedent on not being the most honourable in terms of cancelling defence contracts for political motives.

[punked]

These contracts are clearly predicated on us purchasing the F-35.…….And really, Canada has precedent on not being the most honourable in terms of cancelling defence contracts for political motives.

That is not what the MOU we signed says. We had this debate when Harper made this claim last year. I thought we concluded he was lying as long as you are in the MOU you can bid on the contracts. Countries like Japan who didn't get in on the MOU but are buying planes wont get to bid, however if you went on the MOU you don't need to buy the plane to bid on the contracts.

[Guest Derek L]

That is not what the MOU we signed says. We had this debate when Harper made this claim last year. I thought we concluded he was lying as long as you are in the MOU you can bid on the contracts. Countries like Japan who didn't get in on the MOU but are buying planes wont get to bid, however if you went on the MOU you don't need to buy the plane to bid on the contracts.

Care to name some countries that signed the MOU but aren’t buying the F-35?

Japan couldn’t sign the MOU because their post-war Constitution places heavy restrictions on Japanese involvement in international arms deals…….Which is unfortunate for both the Japanese and JSF partners, since the inclusion of Japanese companies into the program clearly would have been a benefit.

[punked]

Care to name some countries that signed the MOU but aren’t buying the F-35?

Japan couldn’t sign the MOU because their post-war Constitution places heavy restrictions on Japanese involvement in international arms deals…….Which is unfortunate for both the Japanese and JSF partners, since the inclusion of Japanese companies into the program clearly would have been a benefit.

I am just telling you what the rules are. What we agreed to when signing the MOU.

Denmark hasn't placed any orders yet.

Edited April 15, 2012 by punked

[cybercoma]

You chastise the Government over the F-35 program at ~25 billion, but trust them with a shipbuilding program, when using the same accounting methods, will be in the hundreds of billions of dollar range?

I didn't chastise the government over the F-35 program. I chastised the government over one of the principles of their brand: accountability. I have never said that the F-35 is the wrong fighter jet, nor have I ever claimed that we don't need any new jets. For the umpteenth time... this is about government accountability, not jets. Edited April 15, 2012 by cybercoma

[capricorn]

if you went on the MOU you don't need to buy the plane to bid on the contracts.

Just on the question of fairness alone, countries who have signed contracts to purchase x number of F-35s should be placed at the front of the queue for the privilege of bidding on parts production regardless of what any MOU says.

[punked]

I didn't chastise the government over the F-35 program. I chastised the government over one of the principles of their brand: accountability. I have never said that the F-35 is the wrong fighter jet, nor have I ever claimed that we don't need any new jets. For the umpteenth time... this is about government accountability, not jets.

Also pointing out the lies that keep being told on this board by Conservatives as justifications for the governments actions are lies. The F 35 might be the best jet for Canada but this government hasn't actually answered the questions asked about the program, and when they have they have lied and misled.

[punked]

Just on the question of fairness alone, countries who have signed contracts to purchase x number of F-35s should be placed at the front of the queue for the privilege of bidding on parts production regardless of what any MOU says.

But that is not what the agreement was. Your opinion means on what is fair or unfair nothing, that legal document which was signed is what matters.

[cybercoma]

They are already being built.....In Quebec and here and BC.

Now all of a sudden Quebec is important to you?

If Quebec wants to leave, I say let them ... perhaps Canada should have a referendum on whether we should let Quebec stay….

[Guest Derek L]

But that is not what the agreement was. Your opinion means on what is fair or unfair nothing, that legal document which was signed is what matters.

And Pratt & Whitney couldn't legally shift production to another one of their plants in the States?

[Guest Derek L]

Now all of a sudden Quebec is important to you?

As a province of Canada, Quebec is still a political reality…….Doesn’t change my views on the sovereignty question.

[capricorn]

But that is not what the agreement was. Your opinion means on what is fair or unfair nothing, that legal document which was signed is what matters.

I cannot find any evidence that the F-35 MOU has any basis in law.

[cybercoma]

I'll have to check it out next time I am in Halifax.

The shipyard is in Megan Leslie's riding, not that it matters.

[waldo]

Realistically though, countries still engaged in the F-35 development would get first crack at contracts for parts production.

again, the Auditor General's report throws considerable doubt on the merits/benefits (to be) realized... again, a part of the snow sales job.

in any case, irony of ironies... JSF countries will each have to bid... bid... for contracts. Imagine! A bid process - competition! What a concept.

[waldo]

you're stating Harper Conservatives have only presented acquisition capital costs for NSPS? If so, which of the following are you asserting; either:

1- Treasury Board policy has been followed and full/complete NSPS costing exists? Accordingly, Harper Conservatives, purposely or inadvertently, have not provided the operational costs to Canadians.

2- Treasury Board policy has not been followed and Harper Conservatives have provided the only costs known/available.

which is... door number 1 or door number 2?

it would seem, whichever choice you pick, you prefer to place some "blame" towards Opposition parties... and no accountability towards Harper Conservatives - yes?

What I am stating is that it is irrelevant what Harper did because the NDP is happy with one purchase without accounting for salary and operating costs and not happy with the other. The NDP could have brought this forth during the election informed the public that the conservatives were not salary and operation costs. If the NDP is inconsistent with their policy considering that one of the purchases happened while the conservatives were a minority they lose the moral high ground. You can't complain and support the same policy at the exact same time, you either inform the public about all such problems and run the risk of losing support in the ridings that are affected or don't complain at all. The conservatives were just doing what every government has done on a regular basis since at least the 50's purchase equipment and use the same accounting principles.

You are trying to justify the complaint about Harper by stating he lied about the 11 billion dollars for the F-35's while being silent on the potentially 40billion or more in the RCN and CG ships.

nice dodge... c'mon, answer the questions. Is there a problem. You bleat on about the NSPS, over and over again, but can't step-up and take an actual position to support your ongoing bleat. Answer the questions.

no matter how hard you try to change the channel, this isn't about the NDP/Opposition.

[waldo]

Salary costs increase when the aircraft and support personnel are deployed to dangerous war zone.

Aircraft use increases so does wear and tear.

and you, apparently, can't read! Additional "Going to War" costing isn't a part of standard operating costs... that is budgeted separately. Accordingly, depreciation costs/risks, if not, should be factored into budgeting... standard business practices - ya think?

[waldo]

Of course they’re building small amounts currently, the aircraft is in only low rate initial production…….and make no mistake, the folks at P&W in Longueuil Quebec (Three NDP seats) are very eager to build thousands of engine components over the next 30 years.

that reads like a guarantee, yes? My understanding is there are no tendered 'contracts' without a full bid across JSF partners - yes?

[waldo]

Its better then letting Taliban Jack and his successors have the decision.

stay classy, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

that reads like a guarantee, yes? My understanding is there are no tendered 'contracts' without a full bid across JSF partners - yes?

It’s a certainty that Pratt & Whitney will build the F-35 engine…….The US Government has stopped funding the alternate produced by General Electric…..

[waldo]

It’s a certainty that Pratt & Whitney will build the F-35 engine…….The US Government has stopped funding the alternate produced by General Electric…..

yes, that's a given... it's the other 'everything else' stuff that will be tendered/bid upon.

[Guest Derek L]

yes, that's a given... it's the other 'everything else' stuff that will be tendered/bid upon.

Such as? Any contracts left to tender will be involved with maintenance and support…..

[waldo]

Such as? Any contracts left to tender will be involved with maintenance and support…..

if a business isn't a principal contractor, then - yes. Obvious point; not sure why you needed to make it. But again, the other stuff isn't guaranteed... to any JSF partner country - correct?

[Guest Derek L]

if a business isn't a principal contractor, then - yes. Obvious point; not sure why you needed to make it. But again, the other stuff isn't guaranteed... to any JSF partner country - correct?

Why I needed to make it? Because the principle contractors already have their Canadian subsidiaries producing F-35 components…..Pratt & Whitney is already producing engines (and components) In Connecticut, Quebec and Turkey…….No contract to be awarded there….

As for the yet to be tendered contracts relating to maintenance and support, it would stand to reason, these contracts wouldn’t be awarded until the aircraft is in significant service.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Derek L

[Smallc]

The NSPS costs 33 billion

the F-35 costs 14 billion

The Comparable cost for the F-35 is actually $9B....or even $5B, since the $9B figure includes infrastructure.