F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[PIK]

Not even close, try and be more truthful.

[Smallc]

Not even close, try and be more truthful.

It's a huge amount of money that he's taken out of the budget, dropping it from almost $24B per year to just over $19B.

[On Guard for Thee]

That and part of what led to his "contempt of parliament" finding was for failing to disclose the file on costs as he is required to do.

[Smallc]

That and part of what led to his "contempt of parliament" finding was for failing to disclose the file on costs as he is required to do.

As had never been done before, and so the outrage is meaningless.

[On Guard for Thee]

As had never been done before, and so the outrage is meaningless.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

[Smallc]

Not sure what you are trying to say.

That you're caught up in faux outrage.

[On Guard for Thee]

That you're caught up in faux outrage.

So it's "faux" in your opinion to be concerned by the government soul sourcing the most expensive piece of junk ever produced by the US military industrial complex that my tax dollars get spent on, and without any competition? What does it take to get you riled up I wonder?

[Smallc]

Since your entire post is full of faux information, I'm going to pass.

[Argus]

Not sure what you are trying to say.

Never in history has the government, at any level, announced the full, life-long cost of a purchase. They will tell you they're going to pay $100 million to construct a new school say, or $200 million on a bridge or dam, or they will buy 50 police cars for $1 million, or a submarine for $300 million. But never have they added in the cost of crewing/staffing and maintaining that thing for the entire lifespan of it. Not once since MacDonald. And nobody does it now either, other than the feds on military purchases, and even then only on some.

Ask your city how much they're going to pay for a police car. They damned sure won't include the salaries of the cops and the fuel, parts and maintenance for the lifespan of the vehicle, not to mention the garage it's going to sit in. Ask the province what a new school costs. They won't add in teachers and other staff salaries, heat, hydro, water, snow clearing, grass cutting and the rest for the next seventy years.

[Derek 2.0]

Harper has gutted it by pretty much as much as Chrétien did.

That's both overly dramatic and subjective......Overall, the Forces (The Army, RCN and RCAF and all Commands within) haven't been as modern, capable, deployable and ingrained through both the ranks and officer corps with a level of actual combat experience (translating into effectiveness) since the 1950s into the early 1960s...

Chrétien's "Decade of Darkness" is often used as the low watermark for the Canadian Forces, and though not without merit in some degrees, the Canadian Forces of the 1970s into the 1980s were at their lowest in nearly every possible measure......The Canadian Forces were the laughing stock of NATO and without overt threats of economic pressure placed upon the Trudeau Government by the EEC, the Canadian Forces today would be nothing more than a constabulary force like Ireland or New Zealand.....

[On Guard for Thee]

Never in history has the government, at any level, announced the full, life-long cost of a purchase. They will tell you they're going to pay $100 million to construct a new school say, or $200 million on a bridge or dam, or they will buy 50 police cars for $1 million, or a submarine for $300 million. But never have they added in the cost of crewing/staffing and maintaining that thing for the entire lifespan of it. Not once since MacDonald. And nobody does it now either, other than the feds on military purchases, and even then only on some.

Ask your city how much they're going to pay for a police car. They damned sure won't include the salaries of the cops and the fuel, parts and maintenance for the lifespan of the vehicle, not to mention the garage it's going to sit in. Ask the province what a new school costs. They won't add in teachers and other staff salaries, heat, hydro, water, snow clearing, grass cutting and the rest for the next seventy years.

The scathing report by the AG on this file claims, to start with, that there are actually guidelines on how to accurately project the costs of a project. Harper hid from all of those guidelines, single sourced a huge procurement program by handing it to the minister of defense. That's like giving your newly driver licensed kid your blank cheque to go and buy him/herself a new car. Of course they'll get a corvette when a chevy would happily do.

[Derek 2.0]

That's like giving your newly driver licensed kid your blank cheque to go and buy him/herself a new car. Of course they'll get a corvette when a chevy would happily do.

Again you compare the Canadian Forces to a teenager.......I'll ask once again, who do you feel better qualified to determine the actual operational requirements of the RCAF? The RCAF or the elected Government?

[On Guard for Thee]

Again you compare the Canadian Forces to a teenager.......I'll ask once again, who do you feel better qualified to determine the actual operational requirements of the RCAF? The RCAF or the elected Government?

Quite obviously the elected government guided by technical experts who are not just the people who are about to shove a truckload of my dollars into their pockets.

[Derek 2.0]

Quite obviously the elected government guided by technical experts who are not just the people who are about to shove a truckload of my dollars into their pockets.

"Technical experts" such as what? bloggers?

And do you have any proof, whatsoever, that current members of the Canadian Forces are receiving "truckloads of your tax dollars"? Your statement's intent is unclear

[On Guard for Thee]

"Technical experts" such as what? bloggers?

And do you have any proof, whatsoever, that current members of the Canadian Forces are receiving "truckloads of your tax dollars"? Your statement's intent is unclear

The F 35 will cost truckloads of tax dollars. I'd like to hear and have scrutinized claims by more than one single source provider. You know I bet when you go to buy a car you don't just head to the chevy dealer and ignore everybody else who sells cars. Or, maybe you do. That's your money, this is my money.

[Derek 2.0]

The F 35 will cost truckloads of tax dollars. I'd like to hear and have scrutinized claims by more than one single source provider. You know I bet when you go to buy a car you don't just head to the chevy dealer and ignore everybody else who sells cars. Or, maybe you do. That's your money, this is my money.

Actually, outside of my wife's Tesla, I've purchased North American made GM products since the 70s.........None the less, drawing upon your example, I don't expect the salesperson or my bank to know how to service my Duramax.......

Of course, the RCAF isn't the sole source provider (that is Lockheed of course), and draws upon both the actual operational requirements of our own Air Force and those of our Allies in determining the end result........The F-35 will meet the operational needs of our Air Force in conducting the policies determined by the elected Government........"Your money" will either be spent on the F-35 or nothing at all.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually, outside of my wife's Tesla, I've purchased North American made GM products since the 70s.........None the less, drawing upon your example, I don't expect the salesperson or my bank to know how to service my Duramax.......

Of course, the RCAF isn't the sole source provider (that is Lockheed of course), and draws upon both the actual operational requirements of our own Air Force and those of our Allies in determining the end result........The F-35 will meet the operational needs of our Air Force in conducting the policies determined by the elected Government........"Your money" will either be spent on the F-35 or nothing at all.

Beoing could meet those same requirements for a lot less money.

[Derek 2.0]

Beoing could meet those same requirements for a lot less money.

No they can't........as has been mentioned numerous times, what do you think happens to support costs of a Canadian Super Hornet fleet once the USN and RAAF have retired theirs in the early 2030s? To say nothing of operating an aircraft already in its third decade of production, with a root design several decades older, out into the 2050s.........Which would be akin to an Air Force today operating the F-86 Sabre....

None the less, the point is moot, the Super Hornet line closes in just over two more years, and we'd require ordering long lead items no later than next summer.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

No they can't........as has been mentioned numerous times, what do you think happens to support costs of a Canadian Super Hornet fleet once the USN and RAAF have retired theirs in the early 2030s? To say nothing of operating an aircraft already in its third decade of production, with a root design several decades older, out into the 2050s.........Which would be akin to an Air Force today operating the F-86 Sabre....

None the less, the point is moot, the Super Hornet line closes in just over two more years, and we'd require ordering long lead items no later than next summer.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy your rendition of most of your comments. The F 35 has fallen so far behind schedule and so far over budget and was a poor design to start with, we need to just move away. Let's go to a bid process so manufacturers have to show us up front what they have to offer.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy your rendition of most of your comments. The F 35 has fallen so far behind schedule and so far over budget and was a poor design to start with, we need to just move away. Let's go to a bid process so manufacturers have to show us up front what they have to offer.

I don't really care what you buy, but by all means, prove my above comments false......Do you dispute the age of the Hornet/Super Hornet design? Do you dispute the timeline of Super Hornet retirements by the USN and RAAF? Or do you dispute the intrinsic costs of being the sole operator of a tiny, obsolete fleet of Super Hornets in the ~2030-2050 timeline?

By all means, refute my comments.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't really care what you buy, but by all means, prove my above comments false......Do you dispute the age of the Hornet/Super Hornet design? Do you dispute the timeline of Super Hornet retirements by the USN and RAAF? Or do you dispute the intrinsic costs of being the sole operator of a tiny, obsolete fleet of Super Hornets in the ~2030-2050 timeline?

By all means, refute my comments.

As soon as you leave the LockMart advertising pages you see that the F 35 has a lot of serious question marks. Mostly boiling down to it's performance claims are extremely inflated, and it's costs are extremely inflated. Let's let other manufacturers get into the game before we start cutting blank cheques. Even the American military is backing away.

[Derek 2.0]

As soon as you leave the LockMart advertising pages you see that the F 35 has a lot of serious question marks. Mostly boiling down to it's performance claims are extremely inflated, and it's costs are extremely inflated. Let's let other manufacturers get into the game before we start cutting blank cheques. Even the American military is backing away.

As you've been asked before, by all means, highlight the inflated performance claims (which you can't factually) or how the American military is "backing away" (and to what)?

[On Guard for Thee]

As you've been asked before, by all means, highlight the inflated performance claims (which you can't factually) or how the American military is "backing away" (and to what)?

How many years and how many billions does it have to exceed it's original claims before you wake up? It can't pull more than 3 G's, can't accelerate, isn't stealthy, burns so hot with that single engine they have to "replank" the decks so it doesn't burn holes. Engines blowing uo because the turbine blades rub, and also heat shift. The HUD doesn;t work, nor does the ejection seat. Need i go on?

[bush_cheney2004]

As you've been asked before, by all means, highlight the inflated performance claims (which you can't factually) or how the American military is "backing away" (and to what)?

Indeed...the U.S. Navy is falling in love with the F-35C. Canada will definitely be buying the F-35A. Hell, the extra billion dollars to replace attrition is a lot better than wasting it on a gun registry or one single year of CBC sexual harassment !

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35c-navy-carrier-nimitz-sea-trials-trap/19019879/

[Smallc]

That's both overly dramatic and subjective......Overall, the Forces (The Army, RCN and RCAF and all Commands within) haven't been as modern, capable, deployable and ingrained through both the ranks and officer corps with a level of actual combat experience (translating into effectiveness) since the 1950s into the early 1960s...

Chrétien's "Decade of Darkness" is often used as the low watermark for the Canadian Forces, and though not without merit in some degrees, the Canadian Forces of the 1970s into the 1980s were at their lowest in nearly every possible measure......The Canadian Forces were the laughing stock of NATO and without overt threats of economic pressure placed upon the Trudeau Government by the EEC, the Canadian Forces today would be nothing more than a constabulary force like Ireland or New Zealand.....

Still, we're spending less as a percentage of GDP than during even the Trudeau years. That's embarassing, and it should be fixed once budget balance is achieved.