Guest Derek L Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 The Comparable cost for the F-35 is actually $9B....or even $5B, since the $9B figure includes infrastructure. And with the methods used to account for the F-35’s 25 billion dollar figure over 20 years, with the surface combatant portion of the NSPS alone, you’d be looking at upwards of 5-10 billion (based on 20 years) per ship (possibly more), not including the Air Det. Quote
eyeball Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Let it go, my friend. In true Canadian fashion, we threw it all the way in favour of a baby bonus or some such thing. I thought we threw it all away because the Tories accepted Uncle Sam's offer to protect us. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wild Bill Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I thought we threw it all away because the Tories accepted Uncle Sam's offer to protect us. Recheck your history, my friend! Maybe google "Diefenbaker Bomarc". Here's a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10_Bomarc "The Bomarc Missile Program was highly controversial in Canada. The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker initially agreed to deploy the missiles, and shortly thereafter controversially scrapped the Avro Arrow, a supersonic manned interceptor aircraft, arguing that the missile program made the Arrow unnecessary." Dief did not just accept "Uncle Sam's offer to protect us". He deployed Bomarc missiles in Canada! We were protecting ourselves. In fact, they were supposed to be nuclear armed. Dief's government fell and the Liberals took over. They decided to go with the nuclear option and the first nuclear Bomarc was operational New Year's Eve, 1963. Then came Trudeau, who wanted to get rid of them but found he couldn't due to internal politics. It all became moot anyway because there were some embarrassing accidents and also, the Bomarcs were proved useless and obsolete. Uncle Sam scrapped them and of course Canada followed suit. So there was no such protection deal, eyeball! We were supposed to protect each other, with Canada pulling its weight. The idea of mooching off of Uncle Sam came much later, during Trudeau's reign. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Dief did not just accept "Uncle Sam's offer to protect us". He deployed Bomarc missiles in Canada! We were protecting ourselves. You're telling me we actually purchased our own fleet of Bomarcs and were free to deploy them as we saw fit? Edited April 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You're telling me we actually purchased our own fleet of Bomarcs and were free to deploy them as we saw fit? He's also telling you we don't need F-35s if we just buy a bunch of missiles instead. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Waldo: no - the Canadian public needs to understand how much funding the Canadian military is receiving, whether capital or operational based. As MLW member cybercoma repeatedly states, Treasury Board policy rules dictate delineated costs, capital versus operational, must be reported... this is a most fundamental auditing requirement to help ensure that money earmarked for capital programs is not spent on operations and vice versa. All the above information is available, in fact it's available on the web. DND keeps all the records that the treasure board has asked it to keep. the problem with the treasury boards rules is to predict the future costs one must rely on past historical data, and guess at the rest, this is what the real problem is, this course of action involves "guessing" at how much funding is required to operate one piece of equipment. It fails to take into account real life problems,and operations, it fails to give the tax payer an accuate cost. This can only be done year by year after they have been completed.. The other problem is these inaccuate figures will be the tools of the oposition, and they will fail to put them into context, that most of these costs are already accounted for in the annual DND operating budget. As far as tracking operational and Capital funds they are ear marked and tagged before the budget is released to DND, capital funds are controled by a separate DND organization, while operational funds are released to each unit, these units are restricted on what they can purchase, while the other dept controls only capital funds, which when compare to the overall budget are really quit small in size. but all this info is avaialable on line to everyone. clearly, overall cost was purposely 'down played' by Harper Conservatives, whether by "hiding" the operational costs, outright, or by skewing them with a ridiculous 20-year life-cycle attachment. Perhaps it is the way things are accounted for by DND, operational costs are accounted for in a separated portion of the annual budget. and have not been a inforced as a requirement in past purchases since 2006. and it is in mine opinion that the opostion is using these numbers to justify it's postion... When infact if it was explain correctly and we did account for these operational costs for the guessed at life time of the equipment it could blow back in their faces, DND would have to change the way it accounts for O&M funds, The government would also lock this funding in for that period of time ( in this case 25 years) meaning that portion of the budget could not be shrunk regardless of the problem as it has already been accounted for during the purchases phase. It would create a problem if the equipment is kept past that period of time, which it noramlly is. It does not account for losses or replacement costs this happens all the time. Or maybe they did hide them to prevent the oppostion for scewing the tax payers thought process, which it has...i will agree with you that was wrong, for what ever reason, that being said i think that asking for all O&M costs to be added into the actual intial cost is just plain stupid and is not proper accounting, and does not give the tax payer an accurate costing of having this peice of equipment in our inventory. and when using these figures it should be explained in full what they mean, 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.
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I can't wait for the life cycle costing of a civil service ballpoint pen. I can't wait until a bigmac cost me 50 bucks because everyone has to account lcc...forget a new home, 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.
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Maybe we could maybe we couldn't. This isn't really about that though. It is about upgrading our shipbuilding facilities on both coasts so they can have the workers, and equipment to compete on the world stage with the US, South Korea, and Poland. Know how those countries became strong ship builders? By projects like this one. So we could spend the money in Canada creating Canadian jobs, the workers of the future, and an industry which Canada has been very good at. Or we MIGHT be able to spend a few dollars less to send our money outside our country and have no rewards. It is called an investment sometimes it takes money to make money. Horse shit, what did our ship builders do after they finshed the last frigates we had built, today one is bankrupt, the other down sized and moved to halifax, this entire build in a canadian shipyard is about provideing tempory welfare to these companies, and to these workers, if you think we are going to compete with korea, poland in ship building you should stop taking those pills. There is no future in building Canadian warships, unless me replace them every 15 years or so, that is not going to happen... as far as the rewards go for sending the work to soemone else one of them would be getting a quality war ship, with state of the art wpns... We made this decision years ago when we knew of the consquences of not constantly building ships, instead we say f*** it because we had a huge deficit...and entered the decade of darkenss not just for the military but every dept...and speaking of darkness when was the last time we invested in the coast gaurd....yes we as a nation are concerned with ship building...and this new ship building policy does not account for what happens when all the ships are built, what next...same as the last ime we close the door leave our nations ship building capabilites in the hands of major civilian companies who owe their share holders their loyality first...and in 40 years from now we'll be saying the saem thing "we used to be so good at ship building what happend.. 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.
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 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? the AG asked for the LCC costs for the entire life time of the aircraft,show me where anything said combat was not to be counted....I read the AG report as well no where does it mention we just want day to day flying counted only...The reason it is mentioned because Combat flying means they are taking the aircraft to the very egde of it's specs, or beyond, this eats up the life hours faster, as it stress out the a/c making replacing componets sooner, well before they were due....it means more maintence, it means more fuel , it means more everything, more bombs drops etc....LCC means to account for everything put on or used to support the a/c for 25 years....i mean it is a combat aircraft , we did purchase it to kill and break things did we not....just in combat it uses hours at an incrediable rate...I'm not sure how fast maybe Dereck can answer that one. Going to war costs come out of DND annual operating budget, to make up the difference or unknown costs it trades in it's capital funds as it done in Afghan. Government does not give DND extra because we are war for the first couple years of the Afghan conflict we operated in the red. The cost of the operations does include everything that DND payed out while in operations, but the actual accounting is out of the O&M budget we don't have a war budget but we do keep track of all the cost it occurs to answer questions that will come later... 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.
waldo Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 no - the Canadian public needs to understand how much funding the Canadian military is receiving, whether capital or operational based. As MLW member cybercoma repeatedly states, Treasury Board policy rules dictate delineated costs, capital versus operational, must be reported... this is a most fundamental auditing requirement to help ensure that money earmarked for capital programs is not spent on operations and vice versa.All the above information is available, in fact it's available on the web. DND keeps all the records that the Treasury Board has asked it to keep.[waldo: The onus was/is on the Harper Conservative government to convey complete funding information to Parliament/the public, most particularly in this F-35 case, as it is the single-most costly military expenditure in Canadian history. Money is money; whether capital or operational, the Canadian taxpayer is 'on the hook'... as an effective sponsor, the Canadian public must be apprised of all associated costs.] The problem with the Treasury Board rules is to predict the future costs one must rely on past historical data, and guess at the rest, this is what the real problem is, this course of action involves "guessing" at how much funding is required to operate one piece of equipment. It fails to take into account real life problems,and operations, it fails to give the tax payer an accurate cost. This can only be done year by year after they have been completed. [waldo: standard estimating practice accounts for intangibles... includes risk assessment... factors contingencies... recognizes uncertainties - hence, an 'estimate'. If an estimate proves low over time, if additional funding is required, procedure dictates following an available process to secure that additional funding... which, of course, presumes on legitimate identified need, appropriate analysis, a substantiating "business case", secured agreements and, ultimately, the allotted funding.] The other problem is these inaccurate figures will be the tools of the opposition, and they will fail to put them into context, that most of these costs are already accounted for in the annual DND operating budget.[waldo: I've highlighted one (obvious) role of the Opposition parties - to hold the government accountable. Of course, this does not necessarily mean an across the board 'opposition' to a procurement initiative. In any case, I wouldn't expect a particular year's operational budgeting shortfall, one attributed to an inaccurate costing estimate, to rise to a profile level... particularly if contingencies have been established.] As far as tracking operational and Capital funds they are ear marked and tagged before the budget is released to DND, capital funds are controlled by a separate DND organization, while operational funds are released to each unit, these units are restricted on what they can purchase, while the other dept controls only capital funds, which when compare to the overall budget are really quit small in size. but all this info is available on line to everyone. [waldo: this is encouraging to read; effectively, it appears that within DND, a standard auditing principle to fully delineate capital from operational costing/funds has been further extended upon by an organizational construct intended to help manage separation.] clearly, overall cost was purposely 'down played' by Harper Conservatives, whether by "hiding" the operational costs, outright, or by skewing them with a ridiculous 20-year life-cycle attachment.Perhaps it is the way things are accounted for by DND, operational costs are accounted for in a separated portion of the annual budget. and have not been enforced as a requirement in past purchases since 2006. and it is in mine opinion that the opposition is using these numbers to justify it's position...[waldo: again, Treasury Board policy rules dictate supplying/presenting both capital and operational costing; the Auditor General reinforced this requirement and in reply to the Auditor General's report, the DND has advised it will comply with the Auditor General's stipulation/requirement to adhere to Treasury Board policy rules.]When in fact if it was explain correctly and we did account for these operational costs for the guessed at life time of the equipment it could blow back in their faces, DND would have to change the way it accounts for O&M funds, The government would also lock this funding in for that period of time ( in this case 25 years) meaning that portion of the budget could not be shrunk regardless of the problem as it has already been accounted for during the purchases phase. It would create a problem if the equipment is kept past that period of time, which it normally is. It does not account for losses or replacement costs this happens all the time.[waldo: the Auditor General noted this as a glaring inadequacy; that is to say, the capital procurement costing did not include any accounting for attrition... just how many planes might need to be replaced over the life-cycle... fifteen?; twenty?; twenty-five; ??? So ya, add the cost of another 15-25-??? planes to the overall costing.] Or maybe they did hide them to prevent the opposition for screwing the tax payers thought process, which it has...i will agree with you that was wrong, for what ever reason, that being said i think that asking for all O&M costs to be added into the actual initial cost is just plain stupid and is not proper accounting, and does not give the tax payer an accurate costing of having this piece of equipment in our inventory. and when using these figures it should be explained in full what they mean. [waldo: yes, full explanations all around. Full explanations on costing from DND to government... and full explanations on costing from government to Parliament/public.] Quote
GostHacked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 The Comparable cost for the F-35 is actually $9B....or even $5B, since the $9B figure includes infrastructure. We've already gone way beyond that in price. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 waldo: The onus was/is on the Harper Conservative government to convey complete funding information to Parliament/the public, most particularly in this F-35 case, as it is the single-most costly military expenditure in Canadian history. Money is money; whether capital or operational, the Canadian taxpayer is 'on the hook'... as an effective sponsor, the Canadian public must be apprised of all associated costs.] Your right they scewed the pouch, so what is next, do we have enough to have him fired, NO...is it enough to effect the next election, proaqbly not...Canadians have short memories,, Is it going to effect the purchases, yes it will unless the tories can win every election from here to there. opposition will cancel it just on principle, not becuase it is a good A/c it has merrits, today it is the best on the market, for it's class. it will be gone and Canada will be looking for another fighter any fighter as long as it is not the F-35....and once again our service pers will end up riding some of the cheapest equipment on the market... [waldo: standard estimating practice accounts for intangibles... includes risk assessment... factors contingencies... recognizes uncertainties - hence, an 'estimate'. If an estimate proves low over time, if additional funding is required, procedure dictates following an available process to secure that additional funding... which, of course, presumes on legitimate identified need, appropriate analysis, a substantiating "business case", secured agreements and, ultimately, the allotted funding.] We both know that this is an extremily long process, and does not always work, such as when the belt has been tighten 2 or 3 notches ....but lets call it what it is a guess an educated guess at best but it still not accurate.... waldo: I've highlighted one (obvious) role of the Opposition parties - to hold the government accountable. Of course, this does not necessarily mean an across the board 'opposition' to a procurement initiative. In any case, I wouldn't expect a particular year's operational budgeting shortfall, one attributed to an inaccurate costing estimate, to rise to a profile level... particularly if contingencies have been established.] I like to agree with you but thats never happened, the role of the opposition is to get into power by any means, not to ensure the Cnadian tax payer and voter is getting the best out of their vote. this is a double edge sword i'm affaid the government will do anything in it's power to remain in power. as for anything with the F-35 name attached to it will make news and gather attention as far down as the local soup kitchen. waldo: again, Treasury Board policy rules dictate supplying/presenting both capital and operational costing; the Auditor General reinforced this requirement and in reply to the Auditor General's report, the DND has advised it will comply with the Auditor General's stipulation/requirement to adhere to Treasury Board policy rules.] And it should also be explained to Canadians exactly what it is a "bestguess....and by no means accuate. waldo: the Auditor General noted this as a glaring inadequacy; that is to say, the capital procurement costing did not include any accounting for attrition... just how many planes might need to be replaced over the life-cycle... fifteen?; twenty?; twenty-five; ??? So ya, add the cost of another 15-25-??? planes to the overall costing.] And in doing so jacks up the LCC costs, and to the average Canadian when asked how much does the f-35 cost will tell you 25 bil, when the actaul cost is between 5 and 9 bil...it's called sticker shock...and for that reason alone this project is doomed... 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.
GostHacked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Horse shit, what did our ship builders do after they finshed the last frigates we had built, today one is bankrupt, the other down sized and moved to halifax, this entire build in a canadian shipyard is about provideing tempory welfare to these companies, and to these workers, if you think we are going to compete with korea, poland in ship building you should stop taking those pills. There is no future in building Canadian warships, unless me replace them every 15 years or so, that is not going to happen... The first of the four subs purchased from Britain is now in the water undergoing trials. At a cost of 45 million, up from 15 million (just for the ONE sub)we now have a somewhat operational sub. Now we can get to the other three. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 The first of the four subs purchased from Britain is now in the water undergoing trials. At a cost of 45 million, up from 15 million (just for the ONE sub)we now have a somewhat operational sub. Now we can get to the other three. This is a perfect example of what happens when politician decides what equipment to buy....the same thing here is happening spme what over the f-35 those that are the experts are being told the F-35 is junk.... In my family we have an understanding my wife does not buy or pick out my power tools or pick up, and i don't pick out her appliances or car....there is a good reason for that, she picks out shit that is cute and i pick out stuff because of it's capabilities....same thing happened with the Subs they look cute next thing we know we have cute subs but mech junk.... 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.
mentalfloss Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 This is a perfect example of what happens when politician decides what equipment to buy.... This is what happens when an incompetent politician decides what equipment to buy. A politician that is actually mindful of the procurement process and economic influence would be able to make a rational decision. Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 This is a perfect example of what happens when politician decides what equipment to buy... That said you're not only perfectly happy letting these clowns decide where and when you use that equipment, you're terrified that the public ever should. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I can't wait until a bigmac cost me 50 bucks because everyone has to account lcc...forget a new home, Does the military pay for your home and does it become their property? Or do you pay for your home, it's maintenance, and other related costs, while the property is in your name? As far as I know, the military only pays the closing costs and legal fees for you. That would be accounted for as part of employee income. The only LCC that they would have to do for homes would be the PMQs that remain the property of their respective bases and generate income from rent. However, they also must be maintained by the military (CFHA), which I'm sure you know. If the government decided to build new PMQs, they would need to make that decision based on what it would not only cost for the materials to do the job, but the labour. They would also have to consider how much it would cost for the maintenance and upkeep of these properties. When they don't account for these things you end up with the problems like you know they've had with PMQs. They have a bunch of properties that are falling apart because they not maintaining them properly. So go ahead, fellas, and joke all you want about the "new" accounting principles. At the end of the day its to ensure that there's enough money in the government bank account to make sure your equipment (including buildings) is maintained and running properly. I'm sure you would prefer to know that they considered how much it was going to cost to keep the equipment safe and running properly before they buy it, rather than ignoring those costs and finding out later they don't have enough money to keep your stuff in working order. Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You're telling me we actually purchased our own fleet of Bomarcs and were free to deploy them as we saw fit? Yes! Read for yourself! It's called "google"! That's why there was so much heated debate not only in Parliament but internally within first the PC and then later the Liberal Party! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 He's also telling you we don't need F-35s if we just buy a bunch of missiles instead. No! Sez who? The point about the Bomarcs is that they were pulled out and scrapped because they wouldn't work! Geez, CC! Don't be so quick to twist everything to your arguments. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 the AG asked for the LCC costs for the entire life time of the aircraft,show me where anything said combat was not to be counted... Combat is not counted because it's an unforeseeable circumstance. You don't fund a military expecting to go to war. Someone, I think maybe Argus, already mentioned that military funding is like house insurance. You don't buy it because you expect your house to burn down. Combat is an additional cost placed on the nation when we decide to go to war. It's a hell of a lot better to start from a baseline of LCC, knowing that we can afford the asset for the duration of its life, then go from that point when we consider whether we have the finances needed to go to war. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 This is a perfect example of what happens when politician decides what equipment to buy.... If the military wants to decide how to spend money unilaterally, it can raise its own funding unilaterally. Until then taxpayers elect representatives and those representatives decide how our money is spent. They'll take what the military says "under advisement." As they should. The last thing we need is unelected bureaucrats deciding unilaterally how much money they need and how much money they will spend without any oversight or accountability to the people that provide them with that money. Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Yes! Read for yourself! It's called "google"! That's why there was so much heated debate not only in Parliament but internally within first the PC and then later the Liberal Party! If we were free to purchase nuclear weapons then why not now? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You don't want F-35s but you want to build up a nuclear arsenal? Are you insane? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I mean that as respectfully as possible. Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 If we were free to purchase nuclear weapons then why not now? Eyeball, judging from past posts you seem to think that a nuclear weapon is some kind of magic wand that will eliminate the need for any other aspect of a military. That's just not true! It's too simplistic. First off, to answer your specific question, the Bomarc was a deal of over 50 years ago. Do you seriously think such political deals last forever? Do you seriously think that a deal to put nukes on a shared Bomarc missile defense meant that we could buy as many other nukes as we wanted, for our own purposes? Give your head a shake, my friend! You usually don't make such mistakes. I can only assume that you are starved for some coffee. Having nuclear weapons as your only military tool is like having a flamethrower to keep flies away! A nuke is a weapon of LAST resort, not the first! Virtually always disputes are well within the capability of conventional military options. Why do you think countries still have infantry? Because sometimes you need to administer a spanking, not annihilate half a country! Besides, as soon as you use one then you can expect to have one lobbed back at you. Do you really think Canada can afford to play that game? As a techie, I can say with certainty that often the simple solution is wrong, because it ignores all the important details. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
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.