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

[Bryan]

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

It sets a very good precedent: if you act like a jackass in parliament, the voters will punish you for it.

[Smallc]

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

He was and continues to be the best option. By a long shot.

[On Guard for Thee]

It sets a very good precedent: if you act like a jackass in parliament, the voters will punish you for it.

Just wait until 2015 and I bet you'll see exactly what you speak of happen.

[Bryan]

Just wait until 2015 and I bet you'll see exactly what you speak of happen.

Don't be so harsh, Justin and Mulcair haven't been THAT bad. They'll take some damage in 2015, but it won't be as bad.

[On Guard for Thee]

And nobody has been a bigger jackass in parliament than Harper for quite some time. I think the damage from that will be substantial. The myriad of scandals he doesn't answer questions about just seems to never end. The TFW one was hardly even getting to a good boil and then wait, hold on, we have the government accessing private info from all the telecom companies. People are getting tired of "scandal overload".

[Bryan]

People are getting tired of "scandal overload".

Yes they are. That's why continuing to harp on those non-issues is going to backfire for the opposition. They've cried "wolf" about five times too many.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes they are. That's why continuing to harp on those non-issues is going to backfire for the opposition. They've cried "wolf" about five times too many.

In our system it is the governments job to propose, and the oppositions job to oppose. Not in all things, but generally that's how it goes. Harper has been so mired in scandal for so long, even when he tries to propose, it gets burried. That makes the CPC in general ineffective. Canadians get that. Even long time CPC supporters I know admit it's time for a change.

[Bryan]

By all means, PLEASE keep it up. It's helping tremendously with both financial and voter support.

[waldo]

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.

yes, as I highlighted, the costs were required to have always been calculated to account for full-cycle costing. Again:

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.

as I understand, again by Treasury Board requirements, the life-cycle costs should always have been presented as a part of government presenting procurement details to Parliament/to the public... it just wasn't being done. It took the PBO and the Auditor General coming forward, in challenging the Harper Conservative F-35 numbers, to rectify a long-standing oversight.

.

[waldo]

further to the earlier costing "opinion" offered; re: Super Hornet versus F-35:

per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013.

for what little accuracy the KPMG figure will actually hold, their report claims a cost of $88 million for the first F-35s delivered in what was to have been the 2017 start of Canada receiving planes... since that has now slid to at least... at least, 2019, who knows what the next "claimed' cost will be.

[Army Guy]

further to the earlier costing "opinion" offered; re: Super Hornet versus F-35:

per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013.

for what little accuracy the KPMG figure will actually hold, their report claims a cost of $88 million for the first F-35s delivered in what was to have been the 2017 start of Canada receiving planes... since that has now slid to at least... at least, 2019, who knows what the next "claimed' cost will be.

Just curious do these prices include 30 years of operating and maintence costs, and everything else that is required by the treasury Dept.....No piont in conversing it if it does not meet Canadian treasury rules.....Im sure the Ausies would like to hear these prices as thats not what they paid for theirs....

[Army Guy]

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.

It is being accounted for twice, i'll write it slower for you....The O&M costs for operating each piece of equipment within an element such as airforce, navy, and army are calculated each year, that funding is then given or added to DND total budget each year....That includes new equipment.....If DnD exceeds that funding envelope it has to go back and ask for additional funding.....It does this each year....O&M costs come out of the Annual DND budget.....

If O&M is already accounted for in the annual budget, why are you going to account for that funding in the overall price of the project, and then lie to the public and tell them here is what it is going to cost you.....16 bil plus.....O&M cost vary from year to year by including them in the over all price your commiting to a finite funding, in this case 8 or 9 bil with each year being subtracted from the overall total.....it does not work like that.....for good reason, if that equipment goes operational "operated outside it's normal focasted usaged, you'll find in year 20 or so, that funding will be gone, and thats when it will be required the most, as O&M cost go way up....Does the project go back to the government and ask for more funding for the project....no the project is closed, O&M funds come out of the Ann budget.

I can see everything all in, as a bench mark, marked out in 10 year cycles, because we as a nation are not very good at buying updated equipment....and it will give the public roughly on what it is going to cost to operate any piece of equipment over a protract period of time.....but it has nothing to do with the price of the equipment and how much the program is going to be worth the day you buy it...

When you buy a car do you calculate all the O&M costs then add that to the sticker price.....if that was the case nobody would buy a car or truck.....imigine if i came out and told your wife this truck cost 50 k, add another 60 k for O&M for a grand total of 110,000 ....do you think she would say Sure where do i sign ...., or Are you F***** crazy....thats what the Canadian public are doing now.....

[cybercoma]

Instead of writing it slower for me, maybe you should go back and read what I was saying slower. Perhaps then you can get it through your head that the ongoing operating costs are necessary to continue using the equipment and when the DND "goes back and asks for additional funding" the federal government should be able to foresee how much funding the DND will need by calculating the ongoing O&M costs.

Individuals don't calculate the ongoing O&M costs because they assume they'll be able to carry it. In worse case scenarios, people end up losing their cars because the bank repossesses them when they can't pay or ideally the person sells it before that happens. The government needs to be more responsible then that and understand how much revenues it will need to maintain the equipment over its life. Individuals don't get to go to their boss and raise their wages, while the government can and will raise taxes to cover costs. Unless you're the Conservative Party, then you lower taxes and spend more.

[Army Guy]

So answer the question why is it accounted for twice, Once in the Annual DND budget....and then added to the costs of the intial purchase of the equipment such as the F-35....In other words the tax payer is paying for the O&M yearly.....then they are fooled into thinking that they are going to pay the all O&M up front on the intial purchase....that is not how any federal dept works....it is misleading....

Hence why in the pass O&M costs were not added to the intial purchase, but rather incorporated into the annual over all DND budget.....we are always going to have warships, aircraft, and army stuff....those cost rarely change....unless they go operational, then DND takes money from other internal funding....

The Average Canadian joe is using the treasuries numbers the "16 bil plus for the F-35" dividing those cost by 65 and assuming that is what we are going to pay for each aircraft.....that is misleading......all O&M costs are already accounted for in the Ann DND budget ......and while that is the price to operate the aircraft for 30 years, that is not the price we are going to pay to have this aircraft on Canadian airfields.....

Canadians should have a clear understanding of how much is this going to cost them.....such as how much is the contract worth and what are we getting....extra costs should also be explained such as O&M costs broken down by year.....

Trust me when i say this project is not going to intially cost 16 bil to own F-35.....by misleading the public they have caused sticker shock.....

[cybercoma]

It's not ADDED to the cost of the initial purchase. You're not understanding the rationale behind lifecycle costing. It's a commitment by the government to maintain a certain level of funding for the DND for the life of the equipment. Unless they scrap them early. Parliament wanted to know how much needed to be committed to the DND over the life of the vehicles. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Every dollar that goes to these doesn't go to something else unless taxes are raised because, as you pointed out, DND will require the money.

[GostHacked]

What flies better than an F-35? Well almost anything really.

Superhornets - available now!

Rafaels - available now!

Eurofighter - (maybe if rebranded to Amerifigher) available now.

And even if we get these, they won't be used abroad. As it is we are only sending 6, count them, 6 CF-18s to eastern Europe. And if something breaks out before then, we are stuck with ... what exactly?

[On Guard for Thee]

Pilot's have claimed they don't like flying the F35 at night, or heaven forbid, in clouds. Now I can do that in a Cessna. Mind you I can't shoot at anybody, well unless I took a shotgun along, but for that kind of money, I would want a little better!

[Smallc]

Pilot's have claimed they don't like flying the F35 at night, or heaven forbid, in clouds. Now I can do that in a Cessna. Mind you I can't shoot at anybody, well unless I took a shotgun along, but for that kind of money, I would want a little better!

Citation requested given current operational status.

[Smallc]

Superhornets - available now!

Rafaels - available now!

Eurofighter - (maybe if rebranded to Amerifigher) available now.

We don't need to replace our hornets for 3 more years...but I wonder how those jets will do in about 30 years?

[On Guard for Thee]

Citation requested given current operational status.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Here are a few interesting thoughts.

[Smallc]

That RAND study was pretty roundly criticized as being wrong. Apparently, all of the western governments are planning to buy a crappy plane....right.

[Bryan]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Here are a few interesting thoughts.

We're supposed to be taking military advice from someone who writes comic books? What's next, Stan Lee as a medical advisor?

[On Guard for Thee]

We're supposed to be taking military advice from someone who writes comic books? What's next, Stan Lee as a medical advisor?

Well because it's a comical airplane, oh unless you have to strap your ass in the seat. There are no end to threads telling the same story. Anyway, I think that airplane is dead in the water, so onward and upward. Sorry, I guess that's almost a mixed metaphor.

[Bryan]

Well because it's a comical airplane, oh unless you have to strap your ass in the seat. There are no end to threads telling the same story. Anyway, I think that airplane is dead in the water, so onward and upward. Sorry, I guess that's almost a mixed metaphor.

Nice one!

[bush_cheney2004]

... Anyway, I think that airplane is dead in the water, so onward and upward. Sorry, I guess that's almost a mixed metaphor.

Actually, the F-35C will start carrier sea trials in October after its tailhook was modified to better catch the arresting wire. Deliveries of aircraft variants continue out of the Fort Worth plant...well over 100 units so far. Canada's future order will go down this same line:

Edited May 4, 2014 by bush_cheney2004