Military Spending Cuts

[On Guard for Thee]

Military generals dont even know what equipment they might need, until people and elected representitives decide what we want them to do.

Good job of getting the horse back in front of the cart. I reckon most Canadians prefer a democracy over a military junta. And who was it someone decided we wanted to attack with a stealth bomber?

[Army Guy]

Military generals dont even know what equipment they might need, until people and elected representitives decide what we want them to do.

While subsequent policy statements have been issued in 2005, and most recently in 2008 with the Canada First Defense Strategy (CFDS), the Canadian Forces (CF) have been left to rely on dated or sparse documents that contain unreliable figures and vague policy direction.

Canada's last Defence White Paper was published in 1994.

http://romeodallaire.sencanada.ca/en/p103008/

The elected representives are the ones that are deciding what they want the military to do, along with what equipment to do it with...

With that being said DND knows what equipment to buy, according to the last White paper, and policy statements issued by our elected representitives....As for the people well sorry they do not have any input into any of those decisions other than who they are going to vote for, and to protest bad decisions....

Edited September 23, 2013 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Edited September 23, 2013 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Good job of getting the horse back in front of the cart. I reckon most Canadians prefer a democracy over a military junta. And who was it someone decided we wanted to attack with a stealth bomber?

I would say you'd have a piont if our military forces were as large as Russia's, or if we had a history of Military coup's or even invading other countries for the hell of it. But this is Canada and it's soldiers and members are regular canadian citizens just like you. So relax our military is not out to get you, or take over the country, now we might shovel some snow for toronto, fight floods in Manitoba, Ice storms in Ont ,or Que but we have yet to take away anyones rights or beer or cancel any hockey games....i think your safe....

[On Guard for Thee]

I would say you'd have a piont if our military forces were as large as Russia's, or if we had a history of Military coup's or even invading other countries for the hell of it. But this is Canada and it's soldiers and members are regular canadian citizens just like you. So relax our military is not out to get you, or take over the country, now we might shovel some snow for toronto, fight floods in Manitoba, Ice storms in Ont ,or Que but we have yet to take away anyones rights or beer or cancel any hockey games....i think your safe....

I'm not at all worried about our military I've worked with them in the odd war zone around the world, never mind snow shovelling in Winnipeg. I'm concerned about the government that is supposed to stear and oversee what they do and how they handle the purse strings. "Bull in a china shop" is what I see, and not only with regard to the military. For instance they are off building a few billion worth of extra prison cells when the crime rate has been dropping in Canada for the last 40 years or so. But that's another topic. I agree the military should have the right equipment, just not hot rods when chevy's will work just fine.

[Army Guy]

Then you are aware of the the state of our equipment then, you've seen first hand that we are not operating "Chevys" but rather Model T's when compared to our possiable enemies equipment. Your aware that new equipment must be purchsed with a sense of urgency because of how our procument works, and how long it takes to put a finished product in soldiers hands. Perhaps this is why they are the Bull in the china shop....And it is not just the Cons that see this it is, the liberals as well, and yet they use every oportunity to score political pionts by delaying these projects, not just the F-35 but all the projects.

But while going to war in chevy's may be fine for you, perhaps your mind would change if it was one of your family members that had to strap themselfs into a cockpit, or crew a tank, crew a ship. because in todays warfare hotrods mean survival, take a look at the LEO IIA6M we finally borrowed from Germany, this veh is responsable for saving dozens of crews from IED's, mines, and enemy anti tank wpns....then take a look at the LEO C2 performance which had the deaths of serveral crew memebers attributed to it...

That is the problem with our military today, our soldiers have to die in order to get our nation spured into buying new and improved kit, or as you described it "Hot rods"...every piece of kit we deployed to Afghan was there because our soldiers paid for it in blood....including simple stuff from our "green Combats, to Iltis patrol jeeps, M777 guns, new armoured logistic trucks,Leo IIA6M tanks, the list goes on.....and when it was purchased it's only barely enough for the mission at hand not for general use by the military.

[On Guard for Thee]

Then you are aware of the the state of our equipment then, you've seen first hand that we are not operating "Chevys" but rather Model T's when compared to our possiable enemies equipment. Your aware that new equipment must be purchsed with a sense of urgency because of how our procument works, and how long it takes to put a finished product in soldiers hands. Perhaps this is why they are the Bull in the china shop....And it is not just the Cons that see this it is, the liberals as well, and yet they use every oportunity to score political pionts by delaying these projects, not just the F-35 but all the projects.

But while going to war in chevy's may be fine for you, perhaps your mind would change if it was one of your family members that had to strap themselfs into a cockpit, or crew a tank, crew a ship. because in todays warfare hotrods mean survival, take a look at the LEO IIA6M we finally borrowed from Germany, this veh is responsable for saving dozens of crews from IED's, mines, and enemy anti tank wpns....then take a look at the LEO C2 performance which had the deaths of serveral crew memebers attributed to it...

That is the problem with our military today, our soldiers have to die in order to get our nation spured into buying new and improved kit, or as you described it "Hot rods"...every piece of kit we deployed to Afghan was there because our soldiers paid for it in blood....including simple stuff from our "green Combats, to Iltis patrol jeeps, M777 guns, new armoured logistic trucks,Leo IIA6M tanks, the list goes on.....and when it was purchased it's only barely enough for the mission at hand not for general use by the military.

I am fully aware we need "new stuff" and as a taxpayer I don't attempt to withhold a nickel to get it. I just don't want to pay a shitload for a "hotrod" that doesn't work because of military cronyism. I keep harping on the F35 but I can't help but do so. This thing is a turkey and Harper and Co. got caught up in the "big money" business part of the deal. The American's want NATO to fund a project and I don't blame them. But the project is all wrong and we can get Super Hornets for a guaranteed price and the costs in terms of upgrade training for both pilots and engineers will be much less. We've had F18's for a lot of years now and we know how to fly and fix 'em. And they do the job. We don't need to pay for something that may or may not be able to VTOL off a carrier when we don't even have carriers. And stealth? Doesn't exist so why pay for it. I just want bang for the buck regarding both the folks that put their life on their using it, mostly, and also the folks that put their bucks down buying it.

[segnosaur]

...But the project is all wrong and we can get Super Hornets for a guaranteed price and the costs in terms of upgrade training for both pilots and engineers will be much less. We've had F18's for a lot of years now and we know how to fly and fix 'em. And they do the job.

Minor point...

The Super Hornet is a substantially different airplane that the CF18 hornets Canada currently flies... much larger, different engines, different avionics, etc. The fact that we "know how to fly and fix 'em" is irrelevant; the amount of training that will be required for both the pilots and air crew will be roughly equivalent regardless of whether we buy the Super Hornet or F35.

Of course the Super Hornet will cost more to maintain in the long run (having 2 engines, the part of the plane that probably costs the most to maintain will do that). But why should that matter if we can score political points by criticizing the Conservatives?

[carepov]

Minor point...

The Super Hornet is a substantially different airplane that the CF18 hornets Canada currently flies... much larger, different engines, different avionics, etc. The fact that we "know how to fly and fix 'em" is irrelevant; the amount of training that will be required for both the pilots and air crew will be roughly equivalent regardless of whether we buy the Super Hornet or F35.

Of course the Super Hornet will cost more to maintain in the long run (having 2 engines, the part of the plane that probably costs the most to maintain will do that). But why should that matter if we can score political points by criticizing the Conservatives?

Au contraire:

"According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

[segnosaur]

Military purchases should be free of all taxpayers and polictical interference

Then get the money from somewhere else besides the taxpayer.

Here's the problem....While the 'taxpayer' is the one who ultimately pays, they are often ill-equipped to understand how military purchases are made. They hear of "multi-billion dollar" purchases and think its extravigant even if its totally in line with what what the equipment costs. And they are unfamiliar with the longer procurement cycles of military purchases and the economic impact of the longer life span that we expect from our military equipment.

Thus, people fall for Chretien's "Cadillac of the Air" rhetoric when the government was going to replace the Sea King , not understanding the costs (in terms of manpower, etc.) of keeping the Sea Kings flying. And they claim we "don't need no stinkin' expensive stealth fighter", without understanding how production and maintenance costs can vary.

Of course, you can also get the rather schitzophrenic situation, where we expect the military to follow 2 different requirements which are completely contradictory. (e.g. expecting the military to do a task that we don't pay for.)

So yes, we don't want to give cart blanch to the military to do whatever they want. But we should also be hesitant at micromanaging their purchases too. We should recognize limitations in our knowledge, and if we do choose to state an opinion we should at least get educated.

[Topaz]

I suppose every countries needs or wants a military but wouldn't it be much cheaper and peaceful if we could get leaders in place that didn't want to drops bombs on any country or group that they disagreed on?? The cost of war is just getting to expensive for countries, financially and manpower and perhaps they should spend more money on TALKING, working TOGETHER to find a solution. I don't think the generations coming up are going to be warmongers, like the leaders of today.

[segnosaur]

Of course the Super Hornet will cost more to maintain in the long run (having 2 engines, the part of the plane that probably costs the most to maintain will do that). But why should that matter if we can score political points by criticizing the Conservatives?

Au contraire:

"According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

Of course the F35 currently costs a lot to operate. (To be honest I'm surprised the costs are as close as they are; I thought the F35 would be even more expensive). It also currently costs a lot more to purchase.. its a brand new plane, and the kinks are currently getting worked out.

Eventually, the problems they have will be solved. Production will be ramped up, economies of scale will kick in, and the price of both purchasing and maintaining the plane will fall. Meanwhile the Super Hornet, with a smaller number of users and planes in use, will eventually see its costs increase as the planes require spare parts.

[carepov]

Of course the F35 currently costs a lot to operate. (To be honest I'm surprised the costs are as close as they are; I thought the F35 would be even more expensive). It also currently costs a lot more to purchase.. its a brand new plane, and the kinks are currently getting worked out.

Eventually, the problems they have will be solved. Production will be ramped up, economies of scale will kick in, and the price of both purchasing and maintaining the plane will fall. Meanwhile the Super Hornet, with a smaller number of users and planes in use, will eventually see its costs increase as the planes require spare parts.

Really? Do you have any links to support your claims?

From the same artice:

"As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing's figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that.

The math is easy, but the result is eye-popping nonetheless. It's a saving of up to $23 billion."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

[segnosaur]

Of course the F35 currently costs a lot to operate.... its a brand new plane, and the kinks are currently getting worked out.

Eventually, the problems they have will be solved. Production will be ramped up, economies of scale will kick in, and the price of both purchasing and maintaining the plane will fall. Meanwhile the Super Hornet, with a smaller number of users and planes in use, will eventually see its costs increase as the planes require spare parts.

Really? Do you have any links to support your claims?

Well, lets see... there is this opinion column from the National Post. (While I don't typically use "option" columns for proof, I am referring to it because it has the numbers pre-calculated and easily accessible)

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

...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.)...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.

And keep in mind that that was only for a 20 year period... we will likely be flying these planes for 40 years... decades after Boeing has stopped producing the Super Hornet (while the F35 will probably continue to be manufactured.)

Of course what do the Aussies know? They're too busy avoiding getting eaten by poisonous koala bears and drinking their Fosters while watching reruns of Crocodile Dundie.

And then there is this article from the CDA (Conference of Defense Associations). From: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet

Boeing is set to close the line in 2015, after their final delivery to the US Navy. This may be extended by a year... but it is unlikely to go past 2016 (see footnote 3). This would force the Canadian government to advance its purchase of the fighter significantly ahead of schedule

...

It is likely that, after 2025, the US Navy will reduce funding upgrades to the Super Hornet... Thus, it would require the Canadian government to fund all upgrades for its self-​defence, communications, targeting and weapon systems in order to keep it operationally relevant. More importantly, the requirement for such a unilateral Canadian follow-​on development process would have a very significant impact on long-​term sustainment costs.

Oh, and while critics are so quick to jump on every little problem with the F35, keep in mind that the Super Hornet has not been without controversy:

From: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/17/costly_flaws_found_in_navys_top_jet/

Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life...

(The flaw has been corrected and won't affect Canada should we buy the F18E, but it just goes to show that every plane has 'teething' problems.

From the same artice:

"As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing's figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that.

The math is easy, but the result is eye-popping nonetheless. It's a saving of up to $23 billion."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

Keep in mind that much of the CBC article was based on claims made by Boeing. You know, the company that's trying to sell us the F18E. In fact, the operative phrase in the text you quoted is if Boeing's figures hold up. As the article I referenced earlier, sometimes Boeing's financial arguments don't match up with what others have found.

[segnosaur]

I suppose every countries needs or wants a military but wouldn't it be much cheaper and peaceful if we could get leaders in place that didn't want to drops bombs on any country or group that they disagreed on??

Yes it would be cheaper.

The problem is, you're assuming that those countries we might plan on "dropping bombs on" are run by people who are willing to change their actions based on whatever talking is done. Sometimes you can have 2 opinions/viewpoints that are so diametrically opposed that there is no compromise possible.

"I want all Elbonians exterminated!"

"Ok, lets talk... lets come to a compromise".

"Ok, how about only half of all Elbonians exterminated?"

"Deal!"

It is in those situations that the user of military power is useful.

Now, that doesn't mean that it is wise to use the military in ALL cases. For example, it may not be a good idea in Syria (since whomever might rise to power might be more of a problem than Assad.) But, in certain circumstances it can lead to solutions that would be unobtainable in other ways.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, lets see... there is this opinion column from the National Post. (While I don't typically use "option" columns for proof, I am referring to it because it has the numbers pre-calculated and easily accessible)

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

...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.)...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.

And keep in mind that that was only for a 20 year period... we will likely be flying these planes for 40 years... decades after Boeing has stopped producing the Super Hornet (while the F35 will probably continue to be manufactured.)

Of course what do the Aussies know? They're too busy avoiding getting eaten by poisonous koala bears and drinking their Fosters while watching reruns of Crocodile Dundie.

And then there is this article from the CDA (Conference of Defense Associations). From: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet

Boeing is set to close the line in 2015, after their final delivery to the US Navy. This may be extended by a year... but it is unlikely to go past 2016 (see footnote 3). This would force the Canadian government to advance its purchase of the fighter significantly ahead of schedule

...

It is likely that, after 2025, the US Navy will reduce funding upgrades to the Super Hornet... Thus, it would require the Canadian government to fund all upgrades for its self-​defence, communications, targeting and weapon systems in order to keep it operationally relevant. More importantly, the requirement for such a unilateral Canadian follow-​on development process would have a very significant impact on long-​term sustainment costs.

Oh, and while critics are so quick to jump on every little problem with the F35, keep in mind that the Super Hornet has not been without controversy:

From: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/17/costly_flaws_found_in_navys_top_jet/

Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life...

(The flaw has been corrected and won't affect Canada should we buy the F18E, but it just goes to show that every plane has 'teething' problems.

Keep in mind that much of the CBC article was based on claims made by Boeing. You know, the company that's trying to sell us the F18E. In fact, the operative phrase in the text you quoted is if Boeing's figures hold up. As the article I referenced earlier, sometimes Boeing's financial arguments don't match up with what others have found.

A lot of NATO countries that got sucked into this deal to spend untold amounts of money to try to build a flawed plane design, have now pulled out, or are heading for the door. Therefore, the costs to those that remain continue to escelate. They are trying to make a plane that can do everything well i.e. a high speed high altitude bomber, and a low level ground attack such as the A-10. Well you just can't have it both ways. High speed wings are thin, high lift wings are thick. That's the basics. So you end up with an expensive machine that does nothing well. F18's have been around for a while so the upgrade training costs for both pilots and engineers will be much less. It's got TWO engines that, new electronics, and it goes fast Never mind this so called stealth crap that doesn't work and we don't need anyway..

[AlienB]

This isn't entirely true adapative matrials exist now than can change the shape of wings. likewise like you could also have to wing types or wings that adjust like old us or russian jets.

Adaptive materials are new thus expensive but really they arn't but companies will make millions off the tech when it gets marketed.

carbon composite and reactive materials are things to look into

mechanical gears have turned into molecular gears.

A lot of NATO countries that got sucked into this deal to spend untold amounts of money to try to build a flawed plane design, have now pulled out, or are heading for the door. Therefore, the costs to those that remain continue to escelate. They are trying to make a plane that can do everything well i.e. a high speed high altitude bomber, and a low level ground attack such as the A-10. Well you just can't have it both ways. High speed wings are thin, high lift wings are thick. That's the basics. So you end up with an expensive machine that does nothing well. F18's have been around for a while so the upgrade training costs for both pilots and engineers will be much less. It's got TWO engines that, new electronics, and it goes fast Never mind this so called stealth crap that doesn't work and we don't need anyway..

Edited September 27, 2013 by AlienB

[ReeferMadness]

Scenario #1

Islamic radical students overtake our embassy in Indonesia. One Canadian a day is killed until the US leaves Iraq.

Uh, Australia? USA? Nope. Sorry folks, they are all part of APEC same as us. Have to get the US on our side here under "War on Terror." How embarrasing.

Scenario #2

Air Canada airliner is impounded in Peru for not paying back wages to peasants working in a Canadian owned factory. Price tag $40 million.

Pay up.

Scenario #3

Japan decides to hunt whales within our territorial waters. When the boat is impounded it actively seeks out Canadian ships and impounds every one of our boats in and beyond it's territorial waters. US is inactive on this as we both belong to the same Pacific organisation.

Get some diplomats that speak good Japanese and give good head. Crawling on knees is an added atribute for this position too.

Scenario #4

Troops spread thin all over the place and refineries start myseriously blowing up all over Alberta and the Atlantic.

Find a navy that can be everywhere at the same time. Recall soldiers with freshly issued desert uniforms and send them to Wabasca Alberta in December (Winter clothes to follow on next deployment courtesy of US Supply Services.)

Scenario #5

France opens up a full fledged fishing industry in St Pierre. Then decides to make their own 100 mile territorial claim. They station troops and build a military base to get the message across.

Protest to the UN. Annon sends his condemnation and by the time it gets sorted out the Grand Banks are empty.

Scenario #6

Canada gets a bad name with some tiny bannana republic and finds it's ships boarded and confiscated crew labelled as spies.

Send a Liberal MP to see if they are mistreated (writes report on the aircraft on the way there. Answer is no evidence.) Go to UN, a year later new dictatorship says old dictatorship was wrong but cannot find ships or crew. Oh well.

Scenario #7

2,000 troops in Afganistan find themselves fighting for their lives as the Afgan government is overtaken by warlords or whatever. No foreigner is safe. They have to be evacuated under fire. Airport unusable for fixed wing aircraft and other countries are too busy pulling their own out to help ours. Heavy reinforcements are needed immediately otherwise it will be a bloodbath.

Parliament is a bee hive of activity as the candles burn the midnight oil. Who will choose the panel on the inquires?.

Who will study the need to study the need for a study on what happened and why there was no helecopters to evacuate the soldiers?

Scenario #8

Terrorists infiltrate and mass on the border in Canada. Crossing pell mell to strike America they manage to simutaniously attack a school in Buffalo, Detroit, Syracuse, Albany, Chicago and kill over 700 children. They have all come from Canada. America, pissed says shut them down or we will come and do it. Nonplussed Cretien says he has everything under control. LOL he doesn't even talk the talk and stays on his vacation in BC. Two days later fifty thousand US troops cross various border points to enforce the war on terrorism. Now we have a foreign uninvited power ruling our streets. Civilians are outraged and fight a bit. But the US flag is flying over every armored carrier. The military is gone overseas, the RCMP are no match and we look so cool in the world's eyes. Flacid but Liberal.

Cretien goes to the UN and gives Annon a manual while he speaks the oral telling him how he knew everything was under control and if the Americans had waited he would have arrested every one of those "radicaly persecuted unshaven gentlemen" but Bush over reacted.

Scenario #9

Quebec begins talks with Washington. Washington says niether ya nor nay. New York, Vermont and some other states say an enthusiastic, yet unofficial YA! Quebec says see ya. Ottawa says no. Quebec says bye and goes somewhat fiscally messily but goes nonetheless. Quebec becomes the newest country in the world with a blue fleur de lis within a red star whith blue and red stripes as it's flag. Washington officially disproves yet let's it be known it has troops ready to defend her. Any action by Ottawa and the five remaining soldiers and seventy generals is met by a 100:1 military response.

?????

Scenario #10

Dictators, despots, radicals, terrorist, opportunistic 1st world countries see what a good door mat we are and shove and jostle us every way they can. A threat over fishing rights gets a vote at the UN on a loan, landing rights gets a bag of wheat, an imprisoned Canadian gets trade concessions. Soon no miitary = no say in what happens. But we are nuetral.

My, they learn so so fast. And nuetrality, a broker for peace. A world shaker just like the Swiss. Our vision for Canada, to be Swiss.

Kuckoo

Kuckoo

An army in this day and age? Haw! Only need a couple guys with a ray gun and a laptop to write reports. This is the 21st century man! Catch the wave, Daddy O. Papa Annon takes care of all.

So you think that we should piss away billions because of your paranoid delusions? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to up your medications?

[carepov]

Well, lets see... there is this opinion column from the National Post. (While I don't typically use "option" columns for proof, I am referring to it because it has the numbers pre-calculated and easily accessible)

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

...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.)...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.

Thanks for the link. I am dumbfounded on how the numbers can be so different depending on the sources:

Purchase (flyaway) cost:

Hornet:

-3.67-billion / 24 fighters = $CAD 153,000,000 per plane in Australia

-$US 55,000,000 per plane as per CBC article

-$US 90,000,000 per plane as per your CDA link

-$US 67,000,000 per plane as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

F35:

-9 bilion/ 65 fighters = $CAD 138,000,000 per plane as per CBC's and Iverson's claims of official Canadian estimates

-$US 110,000,000 per plane as per CBC's claim of official Pentagon estimates

-over $100,000,000 per plane as per Ivison

-$US 153,000,000 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

If there is such discrepancies in the flyaway costs, how are we to compare the far more complex operating costs?

It just hit me as I am typing, Ivison is comparing Australian Super Hornet (flyaway and operating) costs to Canadian projected F35 costs. This is not right and besides he admits: " don’t trust any of these projections". His article also should give us more confidence in the Super Hornet since it explains how Australia is so pleased with the performance of the Hornets and are planning to buy more.

The CBC article does start with Boeing's numbers but then fact-checks them against reported US Nary numbers. IMO, the CBC is doing it right - comparing operating and flyaway costs of the Hornet and F35 based on Pentagon estimates. And asking Boeing and Lockheed for info:

"CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not.

In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s."

Again I appreciate the links but for the reasons above I will continue to trust the CBC numbers and maintain that our government is wasting billions of dollars on the F35 program. On top of that they are continually snowing us on the program: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/andrew-coyne-the-federal-governments-continuing-spin-on-f-35-costs-is-inexcusable/

[Argus]

So you think that we should piss away billions because of your paranoid delusions? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to up your medications?

I suppose if your only care in the world is how to get more pot, cheaper, without being arrested, and your knowledge of the world is basically, well, nil, you wouldn't see any reason to have a strong military. But if history has taught us anything (not you, of course, since you never learned any) it's that the only territory you have sovereignty over is what you have the military strength to hold. And that hasnt' changed one bit.

[carepov]

...But if history has taught us anything it's that the only territory you have sovereignty over is what you have the military strength to hold. And that hasnt' changed one bit.

Our greatest strength is our alliance with the USA. This strength overshadows our military strength whether on not we spend (or piss away) an extra billion or even tens of billions on our defence budget.

[Argus]

Our greatest strength is our alliance with the USA. This strength overshadows our military strength whether on not we spend (or piss away) an extra billion or even tens of billions on our defence budget.

If you rely on the US to enforce your soverignty then the US has sovereignty, not you.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thanks for the link. I am dumbfounded on how the numbers can be so different depending on the sources:

Purchase (flyaway) cost:

Hornet:

-3.67-billion / 24 fighters = $CAD 153,000,000 per plane in Australia

-$US 55,000,000 per plane as per CBC article

-$US 90,000,000 per plane as per your CDA link

-$US 67,000,000 per plane as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

F35:

-9 bilion/ 65 fighters = $CAD 138,000,000 per plane as per CBC's and Iverson's claims of official Canadian estimates

-$US 110,000,000 per plane as per CBC's claim of official Pentagon estimates

-over $100,000,000 per plane as per Ivison

-$US 153,000,000 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

If there is such discrepancies in the flyaway costs, how are we to compare the far more complex operating costs?

It just hit me as I am typing, Ivison is comparing Australian Super Hornet (flyaway and operating) costs to Canadian projected F35 costs. This is not right and besides he admits: " don’t trust any of these projections". His article also should give us more confidence in the Super Hornet since it explains how Australia is so pleased with the performance of the Hornets and are planning to buy more.

The CBC article does start with Boeing's numbers but then fact-checks them against reported US Nary numbers. IMO, the CBC is doing it right - comparing operating and flyaway costs of the Hornet and F35 based on Pentagon estimates. And asking Boeing and Lockheed for info:

"CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not.

In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s."

Again I appreciate the links but for the reasons above I will continue to trust the CBC numbers and maintain that our government is wasting billions of dollars on the F35 program. On top of that they are continually snowing us on the program: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/andrew-coyne-the-federal-governments-continuing-spin-on-f-35-costs-is-inexcusable/

Are the Australians purchasing the Hornets instead of F35's or are the hornets just a stop gap measure while awaiting the F35s? Because if we are comparing the F35 and its 40 expected years of service and the Hornets and their predicted 10-15 years of service before the F35s start coming in to service its the equivalent of comparing apples to space shuttles. Hornets might be good for the next 10 to 15 years while the USAF and the RAAF are still using them but what happens 25 years from now when the USAF and RAAF have removed those aircraft from their respective services for a decade and we need replacements or end up on operation with our allies but we cannot work alongside them because we are using obsolete aircraft designed 60+ years before?

[carepov]

If you rely on the US to enforce your soverignty then the US has sovereignty, not you.

The US does not need to enforce or sovereignty. Our sovereignty has been and will continue to be protected thanks to our special relationship with the US - this has been and will continue to be the case whether or not we spend 1% or 5% of our GDP on defence.

[carepov]

Are the Australians purchasing the Hornets instead of F35's or are the hornets just a stop gap measure while awaiting the F35s? Because if we are comparing the F35 and its 40 expected years of service and the Hornets and their predicted 10-15 years of service before the F35s start coming in to service its the equivalent of comparing apples to space shuttles. Hornets might be good for the next 10 to 15 years while the USAF and the RAAF are still using them but what happens 25 years from now when the USAF and RAAF have removed those aircraft from their respective services for a decade and we need replacements or end up on operation with our allies but we cannot work alongside them because we are using obsolete aircraft designed 60+ years before?

My understanding is that the Australians originally planned on buying 24 Hornets as a stop-gap before getting their F35s. They are very impressed with the Hornets so are considering buying 24 more. I presume that they would reduce the number of F35s that they purchase.

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