Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

They're been far more right on fiscal projections. The G&M had an article about it last year. This year, though, it seems that everyone is out. The deficit will be about $15B. That's far lower than anyone anticipated.

I remember that article too and I seem to recall that while Page was out it was not by that much (as compared to the total budget balance and compared to our total GDP).

Yet the CPC have been way out on the F35's and you don't even blink. :lol:

If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist)

My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I remember that article too and I seem to recall that while Page was out it was not by that much (as compared to the total budget balance and compared to our total GDP).

And yet, the government was still more right. Page was always predicting the books would be worse than the were. Often, they were better than even the government predicted....like this year, for example. I can't believe the incredible shrinking deficit didn't get any real play in the media.

Yet the CPC have been way out on the F35's and you don't even blink. :lol:

Have they? I've actually seen no evidence of that.

Posted (edited)

And yet, the government was still more right. Page was always predicting the books would be worse than the were. Often, they were better than even the government predicted....like this year, for example. I can't believe the incredible shrinking deficit didn't get any real play in the media.

We are talking about an error of $12.6 billion for the Dept. of Finance versus $13.2 for the PBO: Link

Or an error of $49.7 B to $51.7 B if you read further.....

Have they? I've actually seen no evidence of that.

Then you have conveniently ignored many links in this very thread.

Edited by msj

If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist)

My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx

Posted

oh my!

The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion -- making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain. And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 percent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex. The only other "fifth generation" aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 percent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.

Already unaffordable, the F-35's price is headed in one direction -- due north.

The F-35 isn't only expensive -- it's way behind schedule. The first plan was to have an initial batch of F-35s available for combat in 2010. Then first deployment was to be 2012. More recently, the military services have said the deployment date is "to be determined." A new target date of 2019 has been informally suggested in testimony -- almost 10 years late.

If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications -- and it will not -- it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.

The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.

It's time for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, and Congress to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America's air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits.

Guest Derek L
Posted

oh my!

Wheeler strikes again....Like his prior “endorsements”, the F-35 is now guaranteed to have a stellar career spanning decades.

Posted
Wheeler strikes again....

your expected response. Your list seems to be growing... just within this thread. If only they all had your insights, your astute analysis skills... and your preponderance to so easily, to so readily, to so willingly dispense with the reams and reams of critical comment/review touching upon, "mega cost overruns, a decade+ (and growing) scheduling delay, and mediocre performance"!

Guest Derek L
Posted

your expected response. Your list seems to be growing... just within this thread. If only they all had your insights, your astute analysis skills... and your preponderance to so easily, to so readily, to so willingly dispense with the reams and reams of critical comment/review touching upon, "mega cost overruns, a decade+ (and growing) scheduling delay, and mediocre performance"!

Too jingoistic? Where’s the whistle blower Waldo? Find Lockheed’s deep throat or one of the Air Force personal involved in the JSF program (past or present) that has actual insight into the program and has launched a diatribe against it……….Demonstrate how the partner nations militaries are on the wrong side of right when contrasted with your bloggers and peaceniks.

What, you can’t?

Posted
Demonstrate how the partner nations militaries are on the wrong side of right when contrasted with your bloggers and peaceniks.

uhhh... concerning cost overruns and scheduling delays... my "bloggers and peaceniks" would be, according to you:

- the Auditor General of Canada

- the PBO of Canada

- DND

- the U.S. GAO

- the U.S. Pentagon

- the U.S. Congress

- mainstream media

Guest Derek L
Posted

uhhh... concerning cost overruns and scheduling delays... my "bloggers and peaceniks" would be, according to you:

- the Auditor General of Canada

- the PBO of Canada

- DND

- the U.S. GAO

- the U.S. Pentagon

- the U.S. Congress

- mainstream media

Freedom isn’t free Waldo……….I see you’re running from all that jingoistic techno talk and criticisms of the technical merits of the F-35 though ;)

Posted

Freedom isn’t free Waldo……….I see you’re running from all that jingoistic techno talk and criticisms of the technical merits of the F-35 though ;)

whatever it costs, it costs hey? :lol:

riddle me this: Wheeler highlighted the same testing point I've read now several times recently... that the F-35 is still less than 20% tested. Just what are you basing all your jingoistic technical prowess on... anyway? :lol:

Guest Derek L
Posted

whatever it costs, it costs hey? :lol:

riddle me this: Wheeler highlighted the same testing point I've read now several times recently... that the F-35 is still less than 20% tested. Just what are you basing all your jingoistic technical prowess on... anyway? :lol:

Why the momentum of the M.I.C.....

Guest Derek L
Posted

:lol: hey now... what does Military Intelligence have in common with Jumbo Shrimp?

Perhaps…….But do you not see the irony?

Posted

Or the dozens of time that Canadian fighters have had to escort Russian aircraft from our airspace. Or the fact that parts of our territory are also claimed by at least four other nations one of them being Russia and with the possibility of the massive reserves of natural resources in the north, most of those nations will be willing to push for what they want, we as a nations should be able to push back.

pure fantasy the russians have not been escorted from our airspace, they haven't entered our airspace, flying training missions in antiquated military equipment over international waters is not a crime...

Denmark and USA are having continental shelf disputes with canada mediated....russia hasn't made any claims on canadian territory, canada and russia both have conflicting claims that both have agreed abide a UN mediated settlement...

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Posted

Then you have conveniently ignored many links in this very thread.

Ummm....no. There is absolutely zero proof that the government is estimating the wrong price for the fighter.

Posted

Not at all. For several years, his budget estimates were consistently wrong when compared to the Department of Finance estimates. He's been wrong, in fact, more than he's been right. Why should I care what he says?

You do know that every single estimate by both Page and the Conservatives have been "wrong," right? Because they're estimates.

Posted

whatever it costs, it costs hey? :lol:

riddle me this: Wheeler highlighted the same testing point I've read now several times recently... that the F-35 is still less than 20% tested. Just what are you basing all your jingoistic technical prowess on... anyway? :lol:

FREEDOM! :lol:
Posted

Which was given to you by birthright; never to be taken away.

We have no freedom. Don't kid yourself. We're simply more free than most and less free than some others.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...