I guess you haven't been following the purposeful JSFail F-35 low-ball manipulation, hey? As for Libya, can someone make sense of the OP linked quote... of the real numbers? Anyone? Are Maverick or the Goose on standby?
well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?
as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin
Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!
Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!
good to know what you equate the "Libyan mission" to!
Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!
No way...only those stoopid Americans would waste so much money for such a thing. Collision avoidance and fancy avionics is just more blood sucking by the Pentagon and eeevil Military Industrial Complex.
Economics trumps Virtue. "Access to a wait list is not Access to healthcare" - Chief Justice Beverly McLauchlin
No way...only those stoopid Americans would waste so much money for such a thing. Collision avoidance and fancy avionics is just more blood sucking by the Pentagon and eeevil Military Industrial Complex.
Interests:Drinking scotch in the backroom of the old boys club.
Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:07 PM
I guess you haven't been following the purposeful JSFail F-35 low-ball manipulation, hey? As for Libya, can someone make sense of the OP linked quote... of the real numbers? Anyone? Are Maverick or the Goose on standby?
well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?
as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin
I was let down when your link didn’t go to DND……..Anywho, I wonder if the new figure also included the purchase of these.
Canadian warplanes have dropped 240 laser-guided bombs on Libya so far in the NATO-led mission, according to the military.
Earlier this month, the military published a request to buy 1,300 new $100,000 laser-guided bombs, reportedly all for use in the Libyan campaign.
1300 x 100000 = $ 130000000........Plus my Conservative estimate for the deployed personal only…… What, we're 2/3rds the way there without counting any personal within Canada that supported the mission in some way, and the a portion of the operating costs of five air force bases, and two naval bases......
A Lockheed engineer is probably the last person you'd expect to break the news of a Hollywood mega-blockbuster sequel, but here we go! Flightglobal is reporting Top Gun 2 is not only happening, but starring Tom Cruise (!) as an F-35 pilot. Ha!
Edited by Derek L, 11 May 2012 - 06:08 PM.
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
-Barry Goldwater-
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
-Winston Churchill-
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan-
Some of the conservative supporters around here are not only the most defensively partisan folks I've witnessed...no small achievement...
.....they're friggin' statists! Big time. (Non-military tax dollars aside, of course, yes, yes.)
Who woulda thunk it?
“There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver."
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?
as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin
I wonder if the new figure also included the purchase of these.
1300 x 100,000 = $ 130,000,000........Plus my Conservative estimate for the deployed personal only…… What, we're 2/3rds the way there without counting any personal within Canada that supported the mission in some way, and the a portion of the operating costs of five air force bases, and two naval bases......
you really need to make up your mind - you're adamantly opposed to discussing full costs when talking about the F-35, but you want to keep coming back to the full costs number for bombing Libya... apparently you have difficulty actually focusing on the operational costs of bombing Libya! As for your latest display of MavMath, this threads OP (and just about all media coverage) highlights DND advising the total cost spent on bombs was $25 million... no matter what your MavMath wizardry comes up with. If a humongous number of "bombs for Canadian defence" (/snarc) were purchased, I would be interested in you coming up with the official DND accounting practice that allows the cost to be credited towards the "Libyan campaign"... if they weren't dropped... during the "Libyan campaign".
in any case, per the thread title, per the DND itself, we can say, yes! Peter MacKay is a liar.
Already under fire over the cost of the F-35 fighter, Defence Minister Peter MacKay found himself fighting a second front Friday following confirmation he knew the Libya mission would cost tens of millions more than he told Canadians.
"He knew the estimates, for sure," Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance said. "In fact, he presents the estimates to cabinet. So yes, the minister would have known what the all-up estimated costs of the mission could be."
yes, yes I did read about Hollywood resurrecting yet another ode to pubescent testosterone release. But thanks for the gimme... was your link reference a... "preemptive strike"?
The bizarre news, centered around a movie that doesn't even have an IMDB page and a broken airplane, is taking a little bit to process here. The first question: what will Tom Cruise do? Stand on a runway, staring at his grounded F-35? Will the F-35 be a metaphor for some kind of personal growth? Is the Tom Cruise Lockheed is talking about the same Tom Cruise? Will he fix all of the plane's electrical problems to get the girl?
The film, if it does hit production next month as Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager claims, the writers will have an even greater challenge than the plane's engineers—you can only make a defective, trillion-dollar paperweight so exciting. I can see it now: Maverick is sitting, Four Loko lodged into his beer gut, watching the air war of Libya thunder away, as his F-35 sits outside under a tarp. Fade to black. Begin volleyball scene. Val Kilmer looks better than ever. Chests glistening like so many unused guided bombs. OFFRAMP TO THE SAFETY ZONE.
I'm amazed that anyone over the age of thirteen likes Top Gun; and more astonished that the fans don't recognize it as the unconsciously homosexual movie that it decidedly is.
“There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver."
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
I'm amazed that anyone over the age of thirteen likes Top Gun; and more astonished that the fans don't recognize it as the unconsciously homosexual movie that it decidedly is.
I guess that's why we make fun of it. Who knew the evil Reds actually flew Northrop F-5 Tigers?
Intelligent and fun-loving viewers like yourself, you mean, who don't view movies as life or death issues of personal identity.
I've witnessed tantrums from some TP fans on this matter. "Who you callin' gay, jerk-off?"
Edited by bleeding heart, 12 May 2012 - 11:36 AM.
“There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver."
--Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Intelligent and fun-loving viewers like yourself, you mean, who don't view movies as life or death issues of personal identity.
I've witnessed tantrums from some TP fans on this matter. "Who you callin' gay, jerk-off?"
Top Gun itself is a pretty handy program, mind you. Post Korea, dogfighting was less emphasised and many aircraft were purely missile armed. During Vietnam, missile armed aircraft were forced to dogfight vs slower cannon armed Soviet designs. This brought back shooting/turning skills into the Navy (Top Gun) and Air Force (57th FW Weapons School) which had been largely ignored with the introduction of AAMs.
Interests:Drinking scotch in the backroom of the old boys club.
Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:47 PM
you really need to make up your mind - you're adamantly opposed to discussing full costs when talking about the F-35, but you want to keep coming back to the full costs number for bombing Libya... apparently you have difficulty actually focusing on the operational costs of bombing Libya! As for your latest display of MavMath, this threads OP (and just about all media coverage) highlights DND advising the total cost spent on bombs was $25 million... no matter what your MavMath wizardry comes up with. If a humongous number of "bombs for Canadian defence" (/snarc) were purchased, I would be interested in you coming up with the official DND accounting practice that allows the cost to be credited towards the "Libyan campaign"... if they weren't dropped... during the "Libyan campaign".
in any case, per the thread title, per the DND itself, we can say, yes! Peter MacKay is a liar.
yes, yes I did read about Hollywood resurrecting yet another ode to pubescent testosterone release. But thanks for the gimme... was your link reference a... "preemptive strike"?
To clarify then, there’s no detailed breakdown (in public) of both the old and new figures on the Libyan mission costing? I’d assume if there was, you’d have already linked to them to “disprove” my estimate…….I’ll go with my current estimated breakdown allotment…….My F-35 estimate after all, dated a year prior, was inline with the recently “released” figure by the AG…….
You care to take a stab at the Libyan price tag breakdown?
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
-Barry Goldwater-
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
-Winston Churchill-
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan-
