F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

Again if your side wanted to debate real numbers back then we could have. Instead they quoted team-b numbers which happened to be made up. We now know what the numbers truly were and what they were were greatly inflated at best or made up at worst.

Ah...so Russia didn't make 11,496 MiG-21s. It was all smoke and mirrors. So, how many were actually made and what's your source?

[Signals.Cpl]

Again we can have the debate on if this fighter is good or not good for our country. That is not what the Conservatives did though they lied. So this means we go back to square one on this purchase and have the debate again. It also means that someone screwed up so who was it and what is being done to fix this problem? That is what we are talking about.

Ok, so we have the debate and the government says we need a plane that meets the following requirements: a,b,c,d,e and f. Those are the exact specifications for the F-35, so if we are debating and we accomplish nothing but waste time and money with the whole circus. I think we need to have a consensus from all parties about defence in general and what the Canadian People expect the military to be capable of doing so that the military can plan with as much certainty as possible to what the people of Canada want. Defence should be apolitical because it touches everyone and thats why there should be as little disruption as possible.

The fact is from government to government, there is no consistency. For example the government said we don't need chinook helicopters, and so we sold them to the Netherlands, 14 years later after the government sends the military to Afghanistan they realize that we actually need to buy some, so we sold them for cheap and then had to buy them from a different source which is more expensive. The irony is that when the CF was in Afghanistan we had to catch a ride with the Dutch who were flying the Helicopters we sold them.

If we can develop a consistent list of requirements for the military then we can ask the Chief of Defence staff to develop a list of what is needed to achieve those tasks that the government has laid out. So we can debate once and solve the problem for the next 20 years barring any major political changes. Until now we have had inconsistencies where the military is starved of funds, denied proper equipment and cut in numbers while send on more and more peacekeeping mission that tax its resources to the maximum. Then you send a force that is equipped for peacekeeping to fight a war, soldiers needlessly die, and the government has to go on a massive sending spree to bring the military to the minimum equipment requirements, this is an expensive and irresponsible way of managing your nations defence.

[punked]

Ah...so Russia didn't make 11,496 MiG-21s. It was all smoke and mirrors. So, how many were actually made and what's your source?

Again the right had its chance to debate the facts instead they came back with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

Or the good old quotes like.

"The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more then two to on. They outspent us on weapons by fifty percent. Their navy outnumbers ours in surface ships and submarines two to one. We are out gunned in artillery three to one and their tanks outnumber ours four to one. Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger, more powerful, and more numerous then ours."- Reagan 76.

All of which were and are lies. I don't want that kind of stuff to happen again so I am calling a lie a lie this time.

[punked]

Ok, so we have the debate and the government says we need a plane that meets the following requirements: a,b,c,d,e and f. Those are the exact specifications for the F-35, so if we are debating and we accomplish nothing but waste time and money with the whole circus. I think we need to have a consensus from all parties about defence in general and what the Canadian People expect the military to be capable of doing so that the military can plan with as much certainty as possible to what the people of Canada want. Defence should be apolitical because it touches everyone and thats why there should be as little disruption as possible.

The fact is from government to government, there is no consistency. For example the government said we don't need chinook helicopters, and so we sold them to the Netherlands, 14 years later after the government sends the military to Afghanistan they realize that we actually need to buy some, so we sold them for cheap and then had to buy them from a different source which is more expensive. The irony is that when the CF was in Afghanistan we had to catch a ride with the Dutch who were flying the Helicopters we sold them.

If we can develop a consistent list of requirements for the military then we can ask the Chief of Defence staff to develop a list of what is needed to achieve those tasks that the government has laid out. So we can debate once and solve the problem for the next 20 years barring any major political changes. Until now we have had inconsistencies where the military is starved of funds, denied proper equipment and cut in numbers while send on more and more peacekeeping mission that tax its resources to the maximum. Then you send a force that is equipped for peacekeeping to fight a war, soldiers needlessly die, and the government has to go on a massive sending spree to bring the military to the minimum equipment requirements, this is an expensive and irresponsible way of managing your nations defence.

You forgot one thing. We get to debate how much it costs and if it is worth it as well. You keep forgetting that over and over again you forget that.

[Signals.Cpl]

With Russia, it is always quantity over quality. The MiG-21 might not have been the F-4 Phantoms equal, but there were 100 of them for every F-4. As Vietnam showed, when in a skilled pilot's hands even a MiG-17 could be a handfull.

Only fools think Russia has changed its spots. The only change other than being somewhat smaller is what name it calls the Politb...errrr....Duma.

The change that Russia is experiencing is bringing its military more in line with those of Western nations. During the cold war, the professionals in their military were officers, while most of the non commissioned members were conscripts, while now they are creating a professional force of NCMs with a sizeable force of conscripts to reinforce the military. If anything, they are increasing the efficiency of the military while cutting the size.

[Signals.Cpl]

You forgot one thing. We get to debate how much it costs and if it is worth it as well. You keep forgetting that over and over again you forget that.

Do you think the price is significantly different than planes of similar abilities, or even more specialized aircraft?

[punked]

Do you think the price is significantly different than planes of similar abilities, or even more specialized aircraft?

I honestly don't know yet lets have that debate after we figure out who is responsible for lying about this plane to the Canadian people.

[Signals.Cpl]

I honestly don't know yet lets have that debate after we figure out who is responsible for lying about this plane to the Canadian people.

Listen, why are you so convinced that someone is lying? Just because the numbers came out different does not mean anyone is lying, it could simply be that they are using different criteria. DND says 14billion and 25billion, the difference is that 11 billion is already assigned in the regular budget so it is irrelevant it would cost the same no matter what aircraft we purchase. The belief that the government is lying because. I posted a ling from the DND that gave both figures a breakdown, using the 25 billion dollar figure could be misleading if the AG is using different criteria.

[punked]

Listen, why are you so convinced that someone is lying? Just because the numbers came out different does not mean anyone is lying, it could simply be that they are using different criteria. DND says 14billion and 25billion, the difference is that 11 billion is already assigned in the regular budget so it is irrelevant it would cost the same no matter what aircraft we purchase. The belief that the government is lying because. I posted a ling from the DND that gave both figures a breakdown, using the 25 billion dollar figure could be misleading if the AG is using different criteria.

Again Parliament didn't ask for one figure DND did it asked for all of them which the government didn't give them do you not see something wrong with that?

[Smallc]

Again Parliament didn't ask for one figure DND did it asked for all of them which the government didn't give them do you not see something wrong with that?

They asked for the cost of the F-35. They got the cost of the F-35. The operational expenses are not part of the cost of the F-35. I'm not sure if it's just not sinking in, or if your partisan shield won't let it through.

[punked]

They asked for the cost of the F-35. They got the cost of the F-35. The operational expenses are not part of the cost of the F-35. I'm not sure if it's just not sinking in, or if your partisan shield won't let it through.

No they asked for ALL THE DOCUMENTS. You better go back and look at the wording there Smallc because you are way off on your spin.

[Smallc]

No they asked for ALL THE DOCUMENTS. You better go back and look at the wording there Smallc because you are way off on your spin.

I'm not the one spinning. You're acting as if these figures were actually important. They weren't.

[punked]

I'm not the one spinning. You're acting as if these figures were actually important. They weren't.

Doesn't matter our parliament didn't say "send us all the important documents" they said "send us all the documents". Which they didn't get.

[cybercoma]

I'm not the one spinning. You're acting as if these figures were actually important. They weren't.

What's important is when Parliament asks to see the books, the government shows them the books.

[cybercoma]

I mean, that's important for anyone that cares about government being accountable to parliament. We already know you don't care about that.

[Smallc]

And...the opposition lost an election over it. They got what they needed regarding costing.

[punked]

And...the opposition lost an election over it. They got what they needed regarding costing.

But now we know the Cons were lying whe they said they did give out all the documents. The circumstances have changed.

[Smallc]

But now we know the Cons were lying whe they said they did give out all the documents. The circumstances have changed.

And in three years, no one will care...because it isn't really a big deal, because nothing happened because they didn't report normal operational costs as part of a project.

[punked]

And in three years, no one will care...because it isn't really a big deal, because nothing happened because they didn't report normal operational costs as part of a project.

But something did happen. They buried a number and screamed LIER at anyone who dare speak of that number. Now we know the did that.

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Smallc]

But something did happen. They buried a number and screamed LIER at anyone who dare speak of that number.

No they didn't actually. The numbers for the purchase are $14.7B. That's the end of it. Operational costs will be incurred at the same rate even if we keep the F-18. You're completely missing the boat.

[cybercoma]

And in three years, no one will care...because it isn't really a big deal, because nothing happened because they didn't report normal operational costs as part of a project.

We get it. Contempt of parliament. You get a majority. Keeping information from parliament because the government deems it "not important" is ok because the voters won't care.

Welcome to the Brave New Canada.

[punked]

No they didn't actually. The numbers for the purchase are $14.7B. That's the end of it. Operational costs will be incurred at the same rate even if we keep the F-18. You're completely missing the boat.

Smallc no matter how hard you try all of this is a matter of pubic record. Our PBO quote this number and the Conservatives scoffed they didn't explain the number they said it was wrong.

[Signals.Cpl]

A top Conservative MP responsible for military procurement insists the Conservative government did not mislead Canadians over the costs of F-35s slated to replace Canada's fleet of F-18 military jets.

The comments come after the auditor general said this week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet would have known the pricetag for the military aircraft was higher than what the public was told.

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Conservative MP Chris Alexander tells host Evan Solomon he "honestly" doesn't think Canadians were misled on the costs.

When Solomon asked Alexander why the full costs were not disclosed in Parliament, Alexander appeared to point the finger at officials at the Department of National Defence (DND), saying the answer was in the auditor general's report.

"Not all the information that was in the department flowed where it needed to go, upwards and to other departments," said Alexander who serves as parliamentary secretary to National Defence Minister Peter Mackay.

But when pressed on the question of who was responsible for the lack of due diligence, Alexander answered: "We are."

"The government."

And when asked specifically by Solomon whether any ministers should resign over the matter, Alexander would only say that the government "is assuming its responsibility" by accepting the recommendations of the auditor general.

Auditor-Generals' report

Among the revelations in Auditor General Michael Ferguson's report tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, was the finding that in June 2010, DND estimated that buying and operating the fighter jets for 20 years would cost the government $25-billion.

However, in March 2011, the department responded to a report written by the parliamentary budget officer on the costs of the F-35s, by saying his estimates were wrong and the cost would be closer to $15-billion.

In his only interview since speaking to reporters after his appearance before the public accounts committee on Thursday, Ferguson told the CBC's Solomon that "we know the department [of National Defence] had those numbers, and they could have brought the numbers forward and said here's what we think the full cost is going to be."

Late Thursday, the Prime Minister's Office said the numbers the government presented in March 2011 did not include operating and salary costs, something the PMO now concedes the government should have done.

When asked by Solomon if Mackay was responsible for protecting the integrity of the process, Ferguson replied "I wouldn't expect that the Minister would be the individual that would exercise all of the due diligence."

According to Ferguson, that's why it's important for the bureaucracy overseeing the program that there be a process in place to asks all of those questions.

When asked whether he believed the Conservatives misled the public, Ferguson explained that the audit "was not about who knew what, when."

"It's difficult to say when the ministers were brought in to understand what those numbers are," the auditor general told Solomon.

"It's fundamentally, I think, a question that the ministers need to answer and the department needs to answer."

F-35 contract flip-flop

In 2010, Defence Minister Peter Mackay said the government had signed a $9-billion contract for the acquisition of 65 F-35s to replace Canada's aging fleet of F-18 aircraft.

However, in recent weeks, the government has said it never did sign a contract.

When asked what forced the government to change its tune, Alexander said there have been "lots of contracts along the way" because Canadian companies have gotten involved by participating in the development of this aircraft starting in the late 1990s.

When pressed on it again, Alexander would only say that the government "made a commitment to acquire" the F-35 in 2010.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has accused the Conservatives of misleading Canadians on the true costs of the aircraft.

And on Thursday, after question period, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons, alleging that the government provided two "completely different and contradictory versions of reality."

The Speaker of the House of Commons will have to decide if there is a prima facie case of privilege and report back to MPs.

Parliament adjourned after that for a scheduled two-week break until April 23rd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/07/pol-the-house-f35s.html?cmp=rss

So then the government should state that the DND budget would be 11 billion dollars less over the next 20 years as that money is already accounted for in the purchasing price. That 11 billion dollars is irrelevant as it will happen wether we keep the CF-18 buy the F-35s or any other plane. It is simply the AG adding figures that are already accounted for, as those personnel are present, trained and operational with the CF-18's and will be operations and present for any of the aircraft.

This is just a case of the government saying we are giving the DND a budget of 20 billion a year for 20 years which means 400 billion plus 14billion for the planes, while the AG says the planes cost 25 billion while neglecting to inform the public that the budget for the DND would drop by 11billion over 20 years it would be 389billion for 20 years plus 25billion for the price.

400+14=414

389+25=414

Seems like the AG is unintentionally misleading the public, making them think that the extra money will have to be paid out on top of what is already given.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Smallc]

We get it. Contempt of parliament. You get a majority. Keeping information from parliament because the government deems it "not important" is ok because the voters won't care.

Keeping it from parliament because it isn't part of the total cost of the procurement...yeah, what liars. You and punked are simply partisan hacks who can't look at something the Conservatives do as good or okay or even not evil. I'm done with this discussion too.

[punked]

Keeping it from parliament because it isn't part of the total cost of the procurement...yeah, what liars. You and punked are simply partisan hacks who can't look at something the Conservatives do as good or okay or even not evil. I'm done with this discussion too.

You fail to address that whole Kevin Page thing with your version of reality.