Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Signals.Cpl

F-35 Purchase

Recommended Posts

Blame for what? The Government hasn't been muddying the waters surrounding the F-35...............

This is pure unadulterated BS. Even when they finally acknowledged the full costs, only because internal documents show those were the figures they were using, they've now tried to shift the KPMG report from 30 years to 42 to make the year-to-year costs seem less. You can support the acquisition of the F-35s without flat out lying about the governments complete lack of transparency and accountability here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament didn't ask the manufacturer. So your metaphor is irrelevant.

When you buy a new dishwasher, do you budget for how much soap it will use and how it will effect your water bill for the next ten years? Do you include that in the price when you have it delivered to your door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it doesn't matter. That is the way it is supposed to be done. That is the way the auditor general told them well before that they have to start doing costing. That is the way the PBO told them they need to do costing.

Well, first, the government doesn't actually report to either of those offices (especially not the PBO), but secondly, as I said, this has never before been a requirement or a method, and with good reason. no government anywhere in Canada has reported and project this way. It would have taken the price of Winnipeg's BRT corridor from $140M to well over a billion.

And that is exactly the costing that parliament asked for.

And they didn't get it...and proceeded to lose seats over it.

The government doesn't have the privilege of hiding numbers on a "need to know" basis. And even if they did, this is a need to know thing.

The DND is not going to sacrifice the ability to defend our airspace. That would be one of the last things to go.

Our government isn't just spending $A for acquisition, they will need to maintain $X in order to use the stuff.

X will be spent anyway. You seem to keep missing that.

This is pure unadulterated BS. Even when they finally acknowledged the full costs, only because internal documents show those were the figures they were using, they've now tried to shift the KPMG report from 30 years to 42 to make the year-to-year costs seem less.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. The KPMG report is for the entire life of the fighter fleet, not 30 years.

When you buy a new dishwasher, do you budget for how much soap it will use and how it will effect your water bill for the next ten years? Do you include that in the price when you have it delivered to your door?

I'll let this stand on it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to find the article from last week - and maybe it was already posted - but one of the major papers finally wrote what the cost of the "competitor" aircraft were - I think there were 5 of them. If I remember correctly the F35's current price (to strictly buy the plane) is $80 million and it was close to the lowest if not THE lowest of the bunch - which went as high as $117 million.......and no matter which plane is purchased, you'll have 40 years of operating costs and upgrades to tack on. The truth is that even now, the basic cost of the F35's is within the original $9 billion allocation. So don't be surprised if the F35 ends up being chosen. Sure, there's delays and teething pains that every new plane goes through....but all the garbage that's come out of the opposition and the gullible media for planes that we have not purchased is just that - garbage. That being said, the Conservatives have once again shot themselves in the foot - and arm, and leg with their poor communication strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. They could have explained this away pretty easily...and it would have helped if the Media would have done their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

This is pure unadulterated BS. Even when they finally acknowledged the full costs, only because internal documents show those were the figures they were using, they've now tried to shift the KPMG report from 30 years to 42 to make the year-to-year costs seem less. You can support the acquisition of the F-35s without flat out lying about the governments complete lack of transparency and accountability here.

huh.png

Like I said, do the math on how long our current Hornets will serve......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. We're arguing about government accountability and the supremacy of parliament.

Government accountability .....? Really, you think that is forthcoming do you? As to supremacy of parliament I would suggest that you simply lose the delusion. The power lays within the PMO, always has and always will, minority or majority makes no damned difference....wake up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first, the government doesn't actually report to either of those offices (especially not the PBO), but secondly, as I said, this has never before been a requirement or a method, and with good reason. no government anywhere in Canada has reported and project this way.

That has been the requirement for many years. Since the Conservatives first took office. They were also told by the auditor general before the F-35 mess that they needed to start following the procedures that were in place for procurement.

And they didn't get it...and proceeded to lose seats over it.

The electorate also gave the Conservatives a majority after being found in contempt. It's completely unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. Dare I say the electorate is unbelievably stupid on this point.

The DND is not going to sacrifice the ability to defend our airspace. That would be one of the last things to go.

The DND doesn't write the checks.

X will be spent anyway. You seem to keep missing that.

No. You keep missing the point that it's for Parliament to decide whether or not X will be spent. It's not for cabinet to declare it will be spent. It's also for the Conservatives to say how they intend on sustaining those payments if they refuse to increase taxes and in fact keep reducing their fiscal capacity by cutting taxes in the face of reduced revenues from the economic downturn. Of course, they only want to talk about the procurement price though. It looks better.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. The KPMG report is for the entire life of the fighter fleet, not 30 years.

They used 30 years as the lifetime of the fighters. The Conservatives have been discussing it as 42 years because they want to include the 12 years it's going to take to actually get the things. That allows them to discuss it as though the cost over 30 years is actually spread over 42 years, when it's not. It also misleads the public into believing the fighters have a 42 year life. They don't.

I'll let this stand on it's own.

Right. Because you completely fail to grasp the fact that you can't run your dishwasher if you can't afford soap. Therefore, you need to ensure you will have the fiscal capacity to run that dishwasher when you buy it. If something happens where the economy tanks, you lose your job, and you can't afford dish soap (heaven forbid), you'll have to either 1) find an additional revenue source, 2) stop using the dishwasher, or 3) cut back on laundry detergent to afford dishwasher soap. When you translate that to government procurement, it is people's lives that you are messing with. It's future tax rates or social services that are affected. That is why acquisition cost alone is not enough for parliament. That is why the rules and regulations have been, regardless of whether they've been doing it that way or not, to account for the lifetime costs of things when the government is purchasing them.

But you know what. Go ahead and continue to think it's irrelevant. Obviously you're not going to be convinced that this government, who ran on openness and accountability, has been anything but open and accountable. There are enough people that are concerned about it that convincing you is not important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh.png

Like I said, do the math on how long our current Hornets will serve......

The KPMG report are numbers for 30 years. The Conservatives are lying and saying that figure is for 42 years. It's not. The 42 year figure would be much higher. Roughly another $10 billion above the $45.8 billion figure.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government accountability .....? Really, you think that is forthcoming do you? As to supremacy of parliament I would suggest that you simply lose the delusion. The power lays within the PMO, always has and always will, minority or majority makes no damned difference....wake up.

It hasn't always, but it's beginning to look like it is becoming more and more concentrated and is not going to change any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we got the first one in 82, scheduled replacement is 20 so that is 38 years.

If their replacement becomes the same kind of political football as the Sea Kings, they could easily be around for 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has been the requirement for many years. Since the Conservatives first took office. They were also told by the auditor general before the F-35 mess that they needed to start following the procedures that were in place for procurement.

And yet still, to this day, no government follows it for any procurement. None before, none since, none now - except, for some reason, the F-35.

The electorate also gave the Conservatives a majority after being found in contempt. It's completely unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. Dare I say the electorate is unbelievably stupid on this point.

Or, they thought the issue was less important the opposition thought they should have. The electorate is stupid though, they simply got this one rather right.

The DND doesn't write the checks.

No Canadian government is going to give up the ability to defend out airspace.

No. You keep missing the point that it's for Parliament to decide whether or not X will be spent. It's not for cabinet to declare it will be spent. It's also for the Conservatives to say how they intend on sustaining those payments if they refuse to increase taxes and in fact keep reducing their fiscal capacity by cutting taxes in the face of reduced revenues from the economic downturn. Of course, they only want to talk about the procurement price though. It looks better.

It's already in the DND budget. Because the DND budget has been cut, other things will be given up. This won't, because it's one of the most important missions of the Canadian Forces.

They used 30 years as the lifetime of the fighters. The Conservatives have been discussing it as 42 years because they want to include the 12 years it's going to take to actually get the things.

Show me.

Right. Because you completely fail to grasp the fact that you can't run your dishwasher if you can't afford soap.

You fail to see that we're already buying soap, and will continue to buy it whether or not we buy the aircraft.

But you know what. Go ahead and continue to think it's irrelevant. Obviously you're not going to be convinced that this government, who ran on openness and accountability, has been anything but open and accountable.

That's not why I support them, so it is rather irrelevant to me. I want the F-35. My compliant is that they're not putting enough money into DND, as our percentage spent on defence is beginning to fall again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Because you completely fail to grasp the fact that you can't run your dishwasher if you can't afford soap. Therefore, you need to ensure you will have the fiscal capacity to run that dishwasher when you buy it. If something happens where the economy tanks, you lose your job, and you can't afford dish soap (heaven forbid), you'll have to either 1) find an additional revenue source, 2) stop using the dishwasher, or 3) cut back on laundry detergent to afford dishwasher soap. They used 30 years as the lifetime of the fighters. The Conservatives have been discussing it as 42 years because they want to include the 12 years it's going to take to actually get the things. That allows them to discuss it as though the cost over 30 years is actually spread over 42 years, when it's not. It also misleads the public into believing the fighters have a 42 year life. They don't.

Wow. You do all that before you buy a dishwasher. I'm impressed. What did you figure your last one cost when you bought it? The F-18's will be around for at least 38 years, probably more. The F-18 was also a brand new type when we bought it, just like the F-35.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You do all that before you buy a dishwasher.

Don't be ridiculous. Not using a dishwasher is a hell of a lot different than the government spending nearly $10 billion to buy fighters and having them sit in a hangar because they don't have the funding to fly them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous. Not using a dishwasher is a hell of a lot different than the government spending nearly $10 billion to buy fighters and having them sit in a hangar because they don't have the funding to fly them.

So you don't do all of that when you buy a dishwasher. I'm dissapointed.

We have the funding to fly the present ones. Why wouldn't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the funding to fly the present ones. Why wouldn't we?

His question is a straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a NDP riding.....

There was once a mythical creature known as the Jabberwock, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

And the latest from Mr Ivison:

http://fullcomment.n...35s-for-canada/

There you go Super Hornet cheerleaders:

Super Hornet with 20 years support: $272 million per plane

F-35 with 20 years support: $249 million per plane

Though I’ve been harshly critical of Mr Ivison’s reporting on defence maters, I’ll applaud my fellow Scotsman for finally “running the numbers” on other aircraft, thusly getting ahead of the pack so as to avoid an egg facial………

Bring on and burn down the Eurofighter and Rafale strawmen.

And a fitting ending:

And another look at what the other aircraft will cost:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/When+compared+alternatives+still+best+option/7709995/story.html

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.

Even I’m surprised at the cost of the Gripen…………Economies of scale mater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The electorate also gave the Conservatives a majority after being found in contempt. It's completely unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. Dare I say the electorate is unbelievably stupid on this point.

The number of "stupid people" didn't really grow between elections.... People seem to forget:

The Conservatives were within 2% in popular vote in the last two elections. 37.65 in 2008, 39.62 in 2011. It was barely any change.

What gave the Conservatives a majority of seats is the first past the post system, not any sort of spike in popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sixth gen fighter is supposed to be available by 2026, right as soon as we get our last soon to be purchased F35. Then we can be perfectly lined up to buy obsolete parts at a discount!

The F35 is the best choice of the aircraft we are allowed to look at, and it will be out of date the day it is delivered. This program sucks, and I for one don't want to pay for it.

Most folks on here just want pretty airplanes to play with. I simply can not believe we are arguing about buying war planes from other countries and complaining how much it costs. Of course its expensive, what should you expect, that it will be cheaper to buy them from far away or build them here? Either we wake up and do it in house; save money, create jobs, build national pride and unity in common effort or we can politically divide ourselves; refuse to hire Canadians, refuse to invest in Canadian industry,and refuse fair value to tax paying citizens.

I keep saying this, but where is the fire? Where is the war? Where is the immediate threat to public safety? The CF18 is scheduled for replacement in 2020, but current updates will take the airframe beyond 2030. In less than ten years the Americans went to the moon from its first manned flight. We have 18 years to design and build an airplane here, that is a fact. WE think it is going to cost more than 40 billion dollars for the CF35 program, and we are being told that we can build a Canadian Arrow here for less money. That leaves only one question, why procure defense products outside of the country when we can save money buying from inside the country. If this damned argument is about money, then lets make it about the money. The less money spent, the less debt we have to cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that indicates that any 6th gen fighter currently in the early stages of design would be up for export.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sixth gen fighter is supposed to be available by 2026, right as soon as we get our last soon to be purchased F35. Then we can be perfectly lined up to buy obsolete parts at a discount!

The F35 is the best choice of the aircraft we are allowed to look at, and it will be out of date the day it is delivered. This program sucks, and I for one don't want to pay for it.

Most folks on here just want pretty airplanes to play with. I simply can not believe we are arguing about buying war planes from other countries and complaining how much it costs. Of course its expensive, what should you expect, that it will be cheaper to buy them from far away or build them here? Either we wake up and do it in house; save money, create jobs, build national pride and unity in common effort or we can politically divide ourselves; refuse to hire Canadians, refuse to invest in Canadian industry,and refuse fair value to tax paying citizens.

I keep saying this, but where is the fire? Where is the war? Where is the immediate threat to public safety? The CF18 is scheduled for replacement in 2020, but current updates will take the airframe beyond 2030. In less than ten years the Americans went to the moon from its first manned flight. We have 18 years to design and build an airplane here, that is a fact. WE think it is going to cost more than 40 billion dollars for the CF35 program, and we are being told that we can build a Canadian Arrow here for less money. That leaves only one question, why procure defense products outside of the country when we can save money buying from inside the country. If this damned argument is about money, then lets make it about the money. The less money spent, the less debt we have to cover.

Hmmm, Im told that the F-35 will be the last manned Military fighter.... I would simply LOVE to find out where you recieved your exotic info..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...