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

[waldo]

I'm saying that costing things that way is beyond the comprehension of most voters.

huh! Full budgeted costing... what monies are actually going to the military... that shouldn't be forthcoming?

[Smallc]

huh! Full budgeted costing... what monies are actually going to the military... that shouldn't be forthcoming?

Of course it should, and it is. It's a useful measure, but not a useful measure of the net impact on the defence budget. That's really only the acquisition cost.

[waldo]

Of course it should, and it is. It's a useful measure, but not a useful measure of the net impact on the defence budget. That's really only the acquisition cost.

impact on the defense budget??? What budget(s), other than defense, do you interpret military procurement life-cycle costing to come out of?

.

[Smallc]

Net impact. You can read.

[Smallc]

And I'll leave it up to you to show me that the super hornet is less than the projected purchase cost of the f35

[waldo]

There are only two operators of that aircraft, and it doesn't cost less last I saw.

since you're calling for citations... care to support your claim that the Super Hornet costing is more than the F-35?

And I'll leave it up to you to show me that the super hornet is less than the projected purchase cost of the f35

step up and support your initial claim

.

[Smallc]

I didn't make the initial claim.

[waldo]

I didn't make the initial claim.

step up and support YOUR claim

[Smallc]

In September, the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period.

We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

[Smallc]

Neither of these will matter to you, but here's another:

If opponents of the F-35 had examined the cost of the alternatives — as they should have and as the government should have — they would have long ago realized that there are no “cheap” options. The four other frequently mentioned contenders have list prices equal to or greater than the F-35 — and none of them is classified as a “stealth” aircraft. According the U.S. Department of Defense, Boeing’s Super Hornet costs $88 million per aircraft, which is identical to KPMG’s estimate for a F-35. According to Australian reports, the latest batch of Super Hornets that Canberra may buy will cost more than $100 million each.

Britain’s Ministry of Defence lists the Eurofighter Typhoon at $115 million per aircraft. France’s Rafale costs from $80 to $120 million each depending on the model. Sweden’s Gripen E was just purchased by the Swiss air force for $100 million per plane.

http://o.canada.com/news/when-compared-to-the-alternatives-the-f-35-is-still-the-best-option

[Army Guy]

what's misleading? The full costs were... when eventually presented (as required)... inclusive of a fully identified qualifier concerning life-cycle component costs. Somehow you continue to ignore the "contempt of Parliament" finding Harper Conservatives received over this!

more pointedly, the full life-cycle costs (as estimated) were always known by DND (by the Harper Conservative government). They had to be, per Treasury Board Contracting Policy requirements, for ultimate project approval - that includes, "all relevant costs over the useful life of the equipment, not solely the initial acquisition or basic contract cost". The Treasury Board had already received those costs... but the onus isn't on the Treasury Board to bring those costs forward, or respond to direct Opposition requests asking Harper Conservatives to present full costs.

They are misleading the Canadian public, and no one has taken the time to explain it and the break down to the Canadian public....

Maintence ,infra structure, training equipment , training cost, all come out of the already existing O&M budget of DND...So they are being accounted for twice....explain how that is not misleading....

It should have been presented to the public with the cost it would take for Canada to purchase Aircraft, the cost for all new equipment and training aids, wpns.....that would represent the actual cost of the whole program...

If the treasurey required a best guess est on how much O&M costs would be it should have been done in 10 year increments....up to 30 years, with a disclaimer that these costs are already included in DND annual defence budget, and are not additional costs to the program.....Thats not being done...

[cybercoma]

It's not being accounted for twice. Life cycle costs let us know how much the ongoing spending needs to be. You don't buy aircraft then stop operating and maintaining them 5 years down the road when the government changes. When Parliament asks what the costs are going to be, they need to be given the entire commitment over the life of the equipment. Smallc likes to say nothing has ever been costed that way before, but it's simply not true. The Auditor General made that clear. When Parliament wants to know how much something is going to cost, you don't just tell them the purchase price then say, "bah...we'll worry about the ongoing maintenance and operation costs later." When these things are purchased, they're committing future governments to the investment.

Edited May 2, 2014 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Saying that full costing of procurement isn't done this way is just wrong. Funnilly enough I guess, the AG doesn't require it, but the Treasury Board and the DoD do. I think what happenned here was the CPC was (once again) derelict in it's duty. It allowed the DoD to just go out and try to buy something without any bidding process. Put simply, if you had a kid who just got his/her DL, would you just endorse a check and let them go out and buy whatever they wanted for a car? I would hope not, but that's your money. Doing it with mine I have a problem with.

[bush_cheney2004]

DoD = U.S. Dept. of Defense

DND = Canadian Dept. of National Defence

[Smallc]

Smallc likes to say nothing has ever been costed that way before, but it's simply not true. .

I'm waiting for someone to show me a military project or any other for that matter that was presented to the Canadian public or Parliament in this way. Apparently I'll keep waiting.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes I stand corrected.

[cybercoma]

I'm waiting for someone to show me a military project or any other for that matter that was presented to the Canadian public or Parliament in this way. Apparently I'll keep waiting.

It doesn't matter that they weren't done that way. These were the numbers that Parliament asked for and those are the numbers that the government is supposed to use when determining costs. The auditor general pointed out that the government is required to calculate the costs this way, regardless of whether they did in the past or not.

[Smallc]

So, just to clarify, I wasn't wrong. The costs have always been calculated this way, but never presented this way, for exactly this reason.

[Bryan]

It doesn't matter that they weren't done that way. These were the numbers that Parliament asked for and those are the numbers that the government is supposed to use when determining costs. The auditor general pointed out that the government is required to calculate the costs this way, regardless of whether they did in the past or not.

"Parliament". You mean the opposition wanted the numbers presented that way specifically because they knew they were misleading. It had nothing to do with Parliament needing the information, and everything to do with opposition members trying to pull another fake "gotcha".

[On Guard for Thee]

"Parliament". You mean the opposition wanted the numbers presented that way specifically because they knew they were misleading. It had nothing to do with Parliament needing the information, and everything to do with opposition members trying to pull another fake "gotcha".

Apparently the speaker of the house and the commitee did a bit of a "gotcha" on Harper when he simply refused to provide information he is required to provide. Now your illustrious "leader" is the only PM ever to be found in contempt of parliament.

[Smallc]

And to be reelected with a majority afterwards.

[On Guard for Thee]

And we all know how he orchestrated that. Let's see, he'd already pleaded guilty to the old "In/Out" so it was on to "Robocalls". Next it will be the "Unfair Elections Act" but I thing this one is going to bomb big time. So much for "third time's a charm."

[Bryan]

Apparently the speaker of the house and the commitee did a bit of a "gotcha" on Harper when he simply refused to provide information he is required to provide. Now your illustrious "leader" is the only PM ever to be found in contempt of parliament.

A ridiculous stunt that only proves my point. Irrational opposition only interested in gotchas, not interested in taking the governance of the country seriously.

[cybercoma]

And to be reelected with a majority afterwards.

You shouldn't be celebrating that. It sets a disgusting precedent.

[On Guard for Thee]

A ridiculous stunt that only proves my point. Irrational opposition only interested in gotchas, not interested in taking the governance of the country seriously.

It's exactly the opposite of that. All parties have the right to see what is in a proposed file the government of the day is promoting because as elected members they have a right to vote on said file. Does that not make sense to you?