Derek 2.0 Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 I skewed nothing; nice try!... I presenting that Bloomberg Government article and didn't stray from it... didn't skew it! for the third time, you refuse to answer my question... if you don't agree with it, just say NO. Your latest phrasing "reducing sustainment costs" is a typical DerekDodge (whether 1.0 or 2.0 version). Clearly, you absolutely won't touch that question that speaks directly to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer Kendall's emphasis on a F-35 parts reliability problem. I answered you above, no, I don’t agree with your relaying of the press conference from last Thursday, via the Bloomberg link you shared. oh wait now, perhaps you can bring me around: are you equating a F-35 parts reliability problem to your "couched phrasing"... your "sustainment cost" phrasing? Are those, to you, one and the same? Certainly they are one and the same……If a given part was engineered to last “x” number of hours, but said part was coming up short in expected lifespan, clearly that would add to sustainment costs……As such, if both senior military and civilian officials are identifying such problems, then have the expectation that manufacturers and maintainers will solve such issues, that is clearly a successful approach. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 7 years behind sked, i63 billion over budget, Kendall calls it "acquisition malpractice" and I think most sensible people would agree. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 hence prioritization... realistic prioritization within fiscal reality. Joe Taxpayer you speak of isn't willing to accept a government that promises the moon, at least publicly... while trying to score "we support the troops" points! That $150 billion you speak of, rightly or wrongly, needed or not, can't be the reference point. The reality of defense cuts exists, world-wide. Spend less... more wisely. Hence the emphasis on an updated and realistic Defense White Paper/Stategy or whatever you're comfortable labeling it. Yes the old realistic prioritization within fiscal reality....I've heard this a million times, we can't afford that at this time maybe in 4 years and when times get better funding is almosts always dirrected else where....One of the very reasons DND is in the state it is in....DND has had a huge target painted on it since the dawn of times. Every piece of equipment DND owns has a life span, Canada has a world reputation of extending these life spans well past any engineers wildest dreams...not because we are trying to set world records, because of being forced to by other governmental popular projects, that joe taxpayer wants instead....And i get that...But had we replaced equipment on a sceduled time frame, we would not have been looking at a bill we are today.... Yes the current government did promise the moon, but one has to think why they promised the moon, was it really just to score a few "Support the troops voters" or was there an actual need....Canada needs a new fighter aircraft, new Naval AOR's, new frigate replacement,new destroyers, new Army ground vehs the list is massive....because they have been pushed back so many times that even the forces can't keep them running any longer.... There are many sources that have a dollar value attached to them i choose the one in the middle, these represent a cost to replace and purchase equipment that represents a core capability....nothing extra just core stuff....and it is the reference piont, it which a decision needs to be based, either what core capability is going to be cut, or the unpopular choice needs to be made in spending... Your right the rest of the world is cutting back on it's military spending, but a good majority already have a well upkept military, armed with modern arms, Canada does not have that option, it's military equipment is long in the tooth, and will soon be a liabilty to the nation and it's operators. we need to spend more just to catch up... I agree this nation does need a white paper, but what it needs more is a nation that will stick to the plan. the last white paper lasted a couple months when it was decided it would be to expensive.....and instead of re writing it, it was shelfed in someone desk....like i said before it was a white paper in name only....it reflects on how much defense is thought of in this country...but sooner or later someone is going to have to take a look at defense, and the bill it represents..... and in this era of ever progressive technological advancement, will there ever be another 30+ year life-cycle... let alone 40? Even 20 years... do you realitically expect to see manned fighters in 20 years? For Canada's need (which is what again?), you can't update the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue... and you don't need a "unproven on-paper only F-35" to last 20+ years. While the money dept seems to think so, in fact one of the complaints of the F-35 project was the fact that DND did not include a 42 year plan to O&M funding....i thought it was law....Are you second guess them? i mean historically speaking i said yes DND has a long standing history of keeping equipment well past it's prime....42 years is a little stretch but hey it's the law, DND tried to rebuff it to no avail....it was however a good tool in producing sticker shock... I agree with you Unmanned aircraft are going to make a apearence in the near future, but Canada's reluctance to get in on the ground floor is another story, it all requires funding...Well we have seen Canada, place forces in combat, be it on the ground, in the air, or on the seas...you can't tell me with any certainity it will not happen again....and in my opinion if a nation is going to commit it's citizens to combat , it should have the balls to equip them with the good stuff....to give them an edge in their life and death struggle....or it's citizens should get used to seeing herc's come back with flag drapped coffins... unproven today, but like so many military projects in the past they will spend until it is right...as for the F-35 what is the alternative, perhaps Canada has an option very limited options that performace will be what in 20 years .....but the US does not, it will not fly a foreign plane period....besides Canada is not in a rush to buy anything at this time, according to PWSG it is not even on the list for the short term....meaning this project is not going to even get out of the "which aircraft we want stage for years to come".... 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 say what! As can be found on the Canadian Forces website http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide/aerospace-systems.page? (within the Future Fighter Capability option). Of note: - as highlighted, an RFP reference (2017-2019)... say what? You mean... like a... competition!!!- contract (2018-2020)- delivery (starting in 2026)... long after any existing CF-18s have now been retrofitted/upgraded to last... the last one costing $2 Billion dollars to extend the life of the CF-18s given the ongoing F-35 delays. ok, ok... has the Canadian Forces website been hacked? . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 say what! As can be found on the Canadian Forces website http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide/aerospace-systems.page? (within the Future Fighter Capability option). Of note: . I notice you didn’t post the caveat at the bottom: The information on this page is provided for advisory purposes only and is current as of the date of publication. The information is, however, subject to change without notice and no commitment regarding its future accuracy or content, or any subsequent implementation of the Project described, is made by DND or the Government of Canada. Any expense incurred by any person or entity in reliance upon the information provided is at the sole risk of that person or entity. It is important to note that these contact details are provided for use by interested industry partners only. Please direct all media enquiries to the department of National Defence's Media Relations Office at 1-866-377-0811 Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 I notice you didn’t post the caveat at the bottom: my bad... yes, I failed to mention that it was just released yesterday by DND as a part of its newly developed "Defence Acquistion Guide"... website update shows as "Date modified: 2014-06-16" Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Sources have already told CBC that the date for the fighter jet is wrong. Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Sources have already told CBC that the date for the fighter jet is wrong. that's not very helpful... cite? What dates are wrong - there's several of them in that graphic I put up. Are you saying ("sources telling the CBC" are saying) there is no actual competition being entertained... that the RFP reference is... also wrong? Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2677510 Did you think I was lying? Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) ok, ok... I found "your source" Smallc: But sources tell CBC News the defence data is wrong and does not take into account the work being done by the national fighter procurement secretariat, which is run by the public works department. Another source said the dates in the acquisition guide were notional placeholder numbers. oh my! This is more likely... than not. Imagine DND (through the Canadian Forces website) publishing something that doesn't factor in another departments coincident undertakings! Edited June 17, 2014 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2677510 Did you think I was lying? no - that you're incomplete! I had to go do your work for you (and even in your... pressured... update, you couldn't be bothered to actually quote the specifics). Good job! Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 It's too difficult to quote on this forum using my phone, so I don't. Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 It's too difficult to quote on this forum using my phone, so I don't. sorry, I apologize... I now see that you linked the mobile version of the article... and in my own incompleteness I didn't bother to include my own cite. I've edited to do so. Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Army Guy... about that "promising the moon" theme we were discussing: as just announced... $100B defence spending plan laid out for industry --- Department of National Defence spending plan includes aircraft, weapons, gear for next 20 years Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 That's really not a lot of money taken over 20 years. That actually reflects realities of the procurement budget. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 That's really not a lot of money taken over 20 years. That actually reflects realities of the procurement budget. Imagine if we put 100 B into infrastructure and improving cities and roads and investing in new technologies to help improve out lives. But it seems that money is better invested in being destructive than creative. Ottawa could have the LRT east to west. 100B could actually wipe out our national debt. That would be fantastic. http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada Actually I was wrong, it could take care of about 1/6th of the debt. Which would still be really good. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 say what! As can be found on the Canadian Forces website http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide/aerospace-systems.page? (within the Future Fighter Capability option). Of note: - as highlighted, an RFP reference (2017-2019)... say what? You mean... like a... competition!!! - contract (2018-2020) - delivery (starting in 2026)... long after any existing CF-18s have now been retrofitted/upgraded to last... the last one costing $2 Billion dollars to extend the life of the CF-18s given the ongoing F-35 delays. ok, ok... has the Canadian Forces website been hacked? . What i was refing to was the take after PWSG announced that procument is going to change....at the end of the article the announced 3 projects they were going to work on short term. one was MTV trucks, and i forget the other two, my goggle is down right now, but i'll try and find the source....Now is PWSG priorities the same one would hope but this bun fight has left alot of DND mouths with a bad taste in them... F-35 news is changing daily now, when they actually decide what aircraft is going to take place on the competition i do not know....and perhaps i should of explained my version of short term is....3 to 5 years is short term.....meaning getting a contract in place, signed etc... 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Army Guy... about that "promising the moon" theme we were discussing: as just announced... $100B defence spending plan laid out for industry --- Department of National Defence spending plan includes aircraft, weapons, gear for next 20 years 100 bil is very nice but which projects does that include, i mean the F-35 is slated at 45 bil, and the ships is costed at more than that, does not leave much left over....don't get me wrong it is a good start, provided it carries over to the next government...you know as well as i do that these things can change with one press conference.... 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Imagine if we put 100 B into infrastructure and improving cities and roads and investing in new technologies to help improve out lives. But it seems that money is better invested in being destructive than creative. Ottawa could have the LRT east to west. 100B could actually wipe out our national debt. That would be fantastic. http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada Actually I was wrong, it could take care of about 1/6th of the debt. Which would still be really good. Well your right DND is an insurance policy of some type, we could life without it but their are other costs to that....there are alot of otther debts out there that could be slashed to cut our national debt down as well, if we were serious about doing that.... 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Well your right DND is an insurance policy of some type, we could life without it but their are other costs to that....there are alot of otther debts out there that could be slashed to cut our national debt down as well, if we were serious about doing that.... Canada is not serious about reducing the debt. Not one bit. Who the hell do we owe this money too anyways? I never really get a straight answer there, because there is none. If our DND is an insurance policy, how much are we paying for a plane that has yet to deliver? Seems like paying extra coverage on insurance, but not getting the equipment to facilitate that. Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 100 bil is very nice but which projects does that include, i mean the F-35 is slated at 45 bil, and the ships is costed at more than that, does not leave much left over....don't get me wrong it is a good start, provided it carries over to the next government...you know as well as i do that these things can change with one press conference.... The F-35 procurement is $9B not $45B. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 The F-35 procurement is $9B not $45B. Your right i was taken into account O&M costs. i stand corrected. 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.
segnosaur Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Imagine if we put 100 B into infrastructure and improving cities and roads and investing in new technologies to help improve out lives. But it seems that money is better invested in being destructive than creative. While infrastructure spending can be useful, there are 2 major problems with that argument: First of all, we cannot go without any jet plane. Even if we decided to never ever deploy our forces overseas (unlikely to happen, since all 3 major national parties have, at one time or another, voted to send our planes overseas to blow stuff up), we would still need to have some sort of jet response to handle even minor incidents (such as planes going off course... See Mathias Rust or Payne Stewart). We're a modern western country, which substantial air space. We have commercial air traffic both internally and from other countries in our territory. We need to be able to respond to any issues that might happen. So, even if we weren't sending our planes overseas to blow stuff up, we still wouldn't save the '100 billion'. (we might save some money, but not all.) Secondly, you are ignoring any sort of side benefits we get from the purchase of military hardware. As a result of our signing on to the F35 project earlier, we received dozens of contracts. We may potentially get more if we decide to purchase the plane. These are often high-technology projects, which are high paying and would give our industry valuable experience. Plus, it should be noted that contracts often involve work than just for the planes built for Canada.... we may only get a contracts to build only a few parts, but those parts might be used throughout the entire fleet (from all countries). In fact, that is one of the reasons why the F35 may be a more viable candidate than (for example) the F18 or Eurofighter... as a relatively new plane (and one that yes, is currently being developed), we have more opportunties for such side benefits. The F18? They likely won't be building too many more; whatever involvement we have in buidlng them, the benefits likely won't be long term. Quote
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 The F-35 procurement is $9B not $45B. there's no contract... you don't know, you can't say what the cost of those (presumed) F-35's will be... the inclusive procurement costs. As for the newly announced $100 Billion figure, I don't see anything in the referenced article to distinguish that as only 'capital' outlay. In that regard, until you can confirm otherwise, let's shift Army Guy's $45 billion number (over 42 years) back to, say, $20 billion over the same 20 years mentioned in the article reference - yes? Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 It's an acquisition guide. Given that and the total figure given, it's reasonable to say that we're dealing with budgeted acquisition costs. The $9B figure is for the budgeted acquisition cost for the F-35. It's reasonable to assume then, that the F-35 makes up about 10% of the total budget for the project. Quote
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.