F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

a $25 billion budget for the F-35s was approved by the Harper Conservative cabinet in 2008... approved by the cabinet... while Canadians were being told costs were $15 billion after the purchase choice was formally announced July, 2010. Of course, this is still over the most improper, purposely Harper Conservative low-balled 20-year life cycle period... not even the 30-year period used by the AG... or the more realistic 36-year period being touted as the expected life cycle for the F-35.

as I mentioned a few posts back, PBO Page is updating his analysis to reflect the current U.S. $137 million per plane costs... not the Harper Conservative $75 million per plane low-ball number.

in AG Michael Ferguson's own words...

[msj]

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

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps willful ignorance.

[Guest Derek L]

a $25 billion budget for the F-35s was approved by the Harper Conservative cabinet in 2008... approved by the cabinet... while Canadians were being told costs were $15 billion after the purchase choice was formally announced July, 2010. Of course, this is still over the most improper, purposely Harper Conservative low-balled 20-year life cycle period... not even the 30-year period used by the AG... or the more realistic 36-year period being touted as the expected life cycle for the F-35.

as I mentioned a few posts back, PBO Page is updating his analysis to reflect the current U.S. $137 million per plane costs... not the Harper Conservative $75 million per plane low-ball number.

in AG Michael Ferguson's own words...

And of the ~25 billion dollar figure, how much of that are we currently paying today to operate our Hornet fleet? How much would be an additional cost, that we’re not paying today, to purchase the F-35?

[punked]

And of the ~25 billion dollar figure, how much of that are we currently paying today to operate our Hornet fleet? How much would be an additional cost, that we’re not paying today, to purchase the F-35?

Do you know? I don't. Know why I don't? BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT HASN'T done their job. They need to give me these figures as a voter, these figures should audited by Page and the AG then the public debate should start. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS WHO THING.

[waldo]

And of the ~25 billion dollar figure

is a purposeful low-balled Harper Conservative number reflecting only a 20-year life cycle... not the expected 36-year life cycle. What's the 36 year number?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't include attrition costs on how many additional planes will be required. What's the cost of attrition... how many billion?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect upon the reality of the growing number of 'less tails' (dropped purchases)... as those continue to grow, cost per plane will increase. How many additional billions for that? Will the Navy Find a New Aircraft that Can Replace JSFail? JSFail!!!

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect upon the reality of costs to retrofit already produced planes through the "production phases". How many additional billions for that?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect the growing number of problems being flushed out as development/testing begins/proceeds. How many additional billions for that?

[Guest Derek L]

Do you know? I don't. Know why I don't? BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT HASN'T done their job. They need to give me these figures as a voter, these figures should audited by Page and the AG then the public debate should start. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS WHO THING.

When the “news first broke”, it was stated that of the ~25 billion dollar figure, 10 billion is the cost associated with operating a fleet of fighter jets over 20 years (Operating costs of bases, wages, building & runway maintenance etc) versus the ~15 billion dollar figure associated with the Government’s planned purchase of the F-35.…….With regards to Waldo’s mention of the increase in said figure over the actual lifespan (~35-40 years), that clearly would be said figure ($10 billion for 20 years) further expanded to included an additional 15-20 years at ~ half a billion per year.

[Guest Derek L]

is a purposeful low-balled Harper Conservative number reflecting only a 20-year life cycle... not the expected 36-year life cycle. What's the 36 year number?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't include attrition costs on how many additional planes will be required. What's the cost of attrition... how many billion?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect upon the reality of the growing number of 'less tails' (dropped purchases)... as those continue to grow, cost per plane will increase. How many additional billions for that? Will the Navy Find a New Aircraft that Can Replace JSFail? JSFail!!!

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect upon the reality of costs to retrofit already produced planes through the "production phases". How many additional billions for that?

the purposeful $25 billion low-balled Harper Conservative figure is also a number that doesn't reflect the growing number of problems being flushed out as development/testing begins/proceeds. How many additional billions for that?

I addressed most of you post in my reply to punked, but for your two last points, we’re not purchasing LRIP aircraft, nor are we paying for development costs, especially on your branded about figure that draws itself from the “B” & “C” versions of the aircraft.

[punked]

When the “news first broke”, it was stated that of the ~25 billion dollar figure, 10 billion is the cost associated with operating a fleet of fighter jets over 20 years (Operating costs of bases, wages, building & runway maintenance etc) versus the ~15 billion dollar figure associated with the Government’s planned purchase of the F-35.…….With regards to Waldo’s mention of the increase in said figure over the actual lifespan (~35-40 years), that clearly would be said figure ($10 billion for 20 years) further expanded to included an additional 15-20 years at ~ half a billion per year.

No one has told me what it would cost to operate other Jets over 20 years yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one has told me what it would cost to operate other Jets over 20 years yet.

It would still cost more than you want to pay.

[punked]

It would still cost more than you want to pay.

I would still like a cost benefit analysis from this government on a hue purchase like this.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would still like a cost benefit analysis from this government on a hue purchase like this.

Did you demand the same for used, broke-dick submarines?

[Guest Derek L]

No one has told me what it would cost to operate other Jets over 20 years yet.

The same ~$10 billion dollar figure we're currently paying in costs to operate the Hornets……..Base fire trucks and tractors, the cutting of grass and pushing of snow, replacing hot water tanks in PMQs and paying the wages of pilots and support staff won’t vary on aircraft type, since as demonstrated, said ~$10 billion dollar figure is based on our current fleet.

[punked]

The same ~$10 billion dollar figure we're currently paying in costs to operate the Hornets……..Base fire trucks and tractors, the cutting of grass and pushing of snow, replacing hot water tanks in PMQs and paying the wages of pilots and support staff won’t vary on aircraft type, since as demonstrated, said ~$10 billion dollar figure is based on our current fleet.

SHOW ME! This is your problem the government has never published these figures. Citation needed.

[waldo]

I addressed most of you post in my reply to punked, but for your two last points, we’re not purchasing LRIP aircraft, nor are we paying for development costs, especially on your branded about figure that draws itself from the “B” & “C” versions of the aircraft.

ah, yes... that imaginary "sweet spot", hey? Where is that "sweet spot" today? You know, the one predicated upon a contract signed by the Harper Conservatives... oh, wait... what contract? So, you don't expect any ongoing LRIP development costs or costs associated with managing "B" & "C" versions within JSF to be passed on down to JSF partners? Is there something you can point to that supports such a presumed Canadian isolation to continued cost increases due to ongoing development, ongoing testing, ongoing re-design/re-development/re-testing?

[bush_cheney2004]

SHOW ME! This is your problem the government has never published these figures. Citation needed.

So why are you "demanding" it now?

[DogOnPorch]

So why are you "demanding" it now?

Oh. Oh...I know.

Because the party they didn't vote for got into power?

[dre]

Did you demand the same for used, broke-dick submarines?

I did, but more than that Iv also argued for way more transparency into everything the government does. They should have represent these things to the taxpayers the same way that a CEO explains his plans to a companies shareholders. Lots of data, lots of projections, completely cost/benefit analysis, estimated return on investment etc.

[DogOnPorch]

Of course you did.

[punked]

So why are you "demanding" it now?

I believe not only did I demand it in 2010 so did the MAJORITY of elected MPs. Stop pretending this is a new things to ask for transparency in this purchase.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh. Oh...I know.

Because the party they didn't vote for got into power?

Yeppers...that's what I be thinkin'.

[DogOnPorch]

Yeppers...that's what I be thinkin'.

Combined with Canada'a natural ability to drag its feet, we should be flying those birds by the mid 2040s.

[Guest Derek L]

SHOW ME! This is your problem the government has never published these figures. Citation needed.

They're within DND's annual budget.......Clearly this is available to the Opposition, media and AG…….perhaps you should request a Freedom of Information thingy……….

[punked]

Did you demand the same for used, broke-dick submarines?

There is a great example. Lessons learned. If you are saying the F-35s will be the same type of disaster as the Subs unless the transparency is changed then I agree with you.

[waldo]

I did, but more than that Iv also argued for way more transparency into everything the government does. They should have represent these things to the taxpayers the same way that a CEO explains his plans to a companies shareholders. Lots of data, lots of projections, completely cost/benefit analysis, estimated return on investment etc.

full costs... full stop! Let the Canadian public know just exactly how much money is going to the military. All we've ever heard is the, "might is right... freedom isn't free... fighting them over there instead of over here", jingoistic military water-carriers lamenting the lack of military spending - one predicated upon capital cost outlay only. Let's have the full costs on everything, on each and every military expenditure... full stop!

[punked]

They're within DND's annual budget.......Clearly this is available to the Opposition, media and AG…….perhaps you should request a Freedom of Information thingy……….

Yah a full on 20-35 year costing of operational costs from this day forward for F-35 alternatives is in the budget. For some reason I don't believe you.