Harpers F35s not quite cleared for takeoff

[Azure]

What exactly is going to happen? What exactly is supposed to happen? Regardless of how you look at it the fact still is we need those jets and will STILL need those jets regardless of what they cost.

[Savvy27]

Ok, so from reading this thread I suppose that nobody expects the government to be honest when addressing parliament? Or are you actually buying the idea that the only people who truly understood the cost went up to the deputy ministers and everyone else should be off the hook? Doesn't that seem a little convenient?

Azure: what exactly do we need these particular jets for that renders them a necessary purchase regardless of the cost? So even if Lockheed Martin changed the price to $70 billion, we should buy them anyway?

I get that many of you disliked the liberals, but you don't have to distinguish between the dishonesty of the two parties... just condemn public servants misleading the public.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Azure

What exactly is going to happen? What exactly is supposed to happen? Regardless of how you look at it the fact still is we need those jets and will STILL need those jets regardless of what they cost.

Jets at any cost Azure but not Health Care and Schools?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

What exactly is going to happen? What exactly is supposed to happen? Regardless of how you look at it the fact still is we need those jets and will STILL need those jets regardless of what they cost.

At a certain price, I hope the government would say, "Sorry, that's just too expensive," and look at the next best alternative. The F-35 may be the best fighter available to Canada, but it's not the only option. We have to be fiscally prudent and can't just commit to buy these planes at any cost because we "need" this particular model of aircraft.

Would you still say we "need" them if the price went up to $50B? $100B? Hopefully that won't happen, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

<snip>...
Azure: what (sic) Why? exactly do we need these particular jets for that renders them a necessary purchase regardless of the cost? So even if Lockheed Martin changed the price to $70 billion, we should buy them anyway?
<snip>...

You didn't ask me but I'll throw down, regardless.

The reason we need these particular aircraft is interoperability within the rapidly evolving miasma that is the NORAD system. For better or for worse, this country is irrevocably committed to "honour" our end of the 50+ year old agreement that we as a nation are bound to.

In this particular environment we must have a machine that is going to be able to interface with the USAF's assets (F-22's, AWACS systems, ground/satellite based sensors and communications nodes, UAV's), both current AND future. The F-35's we will receive will meet these criteria off the shelf (and will be supported/upgraded, so as to continue to meet them) under the terms of the purchase agreement.

We already spent about $3.5 Billion dollars upgrading 80 of our CF-18's for this exact reason...there was no big screaming outburst from the "tree-huggers" when the IMP was funded in 2001. In fact, most people still think we're flying the same "clapped-out" F-18's we bought back in 1982-86.

This (in and of itself) speaks volumes about "joe six-pack's" qualifications when it comes to proffering commentary/judgment on a procurement such as this.

We do not get this same capability by going overseas and buying J39, Rafale or Typhoon (not without spending a buttload of additional cash buying avionics suites for them)...and these are really the only other sound options, now that the ideal one (a small fleet of F-22's) has been taken off the table.

I'm not trying to talk down to people, but the average civilian really doesn't have a clue about operational matters in the current environment, let alone the future one.

Let them do their job...The least we can do is give them the proper tools with which to do it.

<steps down off of the soap box>

Edit: Yes "March hare", a line needs to be drawn but that's why people that know far more than me are the ones charged with "vetting" the economics of the program. What goes on in terms of "disclosure" is neither here nor there...it's politics. Let's go buy a "Eurosolution" for (20-25M per copy) cheaper and waste a ton of additional cash on a "made in Canada" solution to the above noted "issues"...we've already been down that road once or twice; it's been examined with this procurement and we're taking the best approach with it.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat

I'm not trying to talk down to people, but the average civilian really doesn't have a clue about operational matters in the current environment, let alone the future one.

Let them do their job...The least we can do is give them the proper tools with which to do it.

<steps down off of the soap box>

If only they could be honest and upfront about what those operational matters actually cost.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat

You didn't ask me but I'll throw down, regardless.

The reason we need these particular aircraft is interoperability within the rapidly evolving miasma that is the NORAD system. For better or for worse, this country is irrevocably committed to "honour" our end of the 50+ year old agreement that we as a nation are bound to.

In this particular environment we must have a machine that is going to be able to interface with the USAF's assets (F-22's, AWACS systems, ground/satellite based sensors and communications nodes, UAV's), both current AND future. The F-35's we will receive will meet these criteria off the shelf (and will be supported/upgraded, so as to continue to meet them) under the terms of the purchase agreement.

We already spent about $3.5 Billion dollars upgrading 80 of our CF-18's for this exact reason...there was no big screaming outburst from the "tree-huggers" when the IMP was funded in 2001. In fact, most people still think we're flying the same "clapped-out" F-18's we bought back in 1982-86.

This (in and of itself) speaks volumes about "joe six-pack's" qualifications when it comes to proffering commentary/judgment on a procurement such as this.

We do not get this same capability by going overseas and buying J39, Rafale or Typhoon (not without spending a buttload of additional cash buying avionics suites for them)...and these are really the only other sound options, now that the ideal one (a small fleet of F-22's) has been taken off the table.

I'm not trying to talk down to people, but the average civilian really doesn't have a clue about operational matters in the current environment, let alone the future one.

Let them do their job...The least we can do is give them the proper tools with which to do it.

<steps down off of the soap box>

Edit: Yes "March hare", a line needs to be drawn but that's why people that know far more than me are the ones charged with "vetting" the economics of the program. What goes on in terms of "disclosure" is neither here nor there...it's politics. Let's go buy a "Eurosolution" for (20-25M per copy) cheaper and waste a ton of additional cash on a "made in Canada" solution to the above noted "issues"...we've already been down that road once or twice; it's been examined with this procurement and we're taking the best approach with it.

Here is where I disagree, the reality is all we need jets for is so that our political masters can curry favour with the US's political masters by agreeing to take part in whatever hare brained scheme they have come up with, and realistically there will be few of these for the next decade or more, the US is broke and sick of wars.
We can just as easily be good allies by developing something of use to us, like a really well equiped armoured strike force and a decent air sea rescue and patrol capabilities. The latest jets and submarines are little more than vanity projects so our military doesn't feel embarressed when we go on excercises with the yanks.
We arn't going to 'need' these jets militarily, and we don't need the fully loaded options to fufill the political functions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Here is where I disagree, the reality is all we need jets for is so that our political masters can curry favour with the US's political masters by agreeing to take part in whatever hare brained scheme they have come up with, and realistically there will be few of these for the next decade or more, the US is broke and sick of wars.
We can just as easily be good allies by developing something of use to us, like a really well equiped armoured strike force and a decent air sea rescue and patrol capabilities. The latest jets and submarines are little more than vanity projects so our military doesn't feel embarressed when we go on excercises with the yanks.
We arn't going to 'need' these jets militarily, and we don't need the fully loaded options to fufill the political functions.

You don't build your national defense policy around specialization and then hand the rest of your defense interests off to another nation.

The theory that we should focus on armored cave and search and rescue and then leave air and naval defense to the Americans makes absolutely no sense.

Specialization doesn't work militarily either, the methods of combat change in every war and every action.

Having at least the ability to respond on all three planes of the battlefield is more based around the possibility of having to fight on those three levels on your own then some jaded political theory.

Canada has to be able to defend their airspace and waters, in a lot of way America's North American Policy in those two areas runs counter to our own interests.

AFC, I'd recommend that you read some of the Jack Granenstien (Probably spelt it wrong but I'm half hammered) you will get a way better sense of Canada's Defense Policy and responsibilities.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You don't build your national defense policy around specialization and then hand the rest of your defense interests off to another nation.

The theory that we should focus on armored cave and search and rescue and then leave air and naval defense to the Americans makes absolutely no sense.

Specialization doesn't work militarily either, the methods of combat change in every war and every action.

Having at least the ability to respond on all three planes of the battlefield is more based around the possibility of having to fight on those three levels on your own then some jaded political theory.

Canada has to be able to defend their airspace and waters, in a lot of way America's North American Policy in those two areas runs counter to our own interests.

AFC, I'd recommend that you read some of the Jack Granenstien (Probably spelt it wrong but I'm half hammered) you will get a way better sense of Canada's Defense Policy and responsibilities.

We have absolotely no way of defending ourselves against the potential enemies we might face, USSR China or the US, we don't even have enough force to make an invasion even slightly expensive, we have utterly relied on the US for decades and even with a couple of squadrons of F35 we still will. In essense we arn't doing nearly enough to be independant therefore we are just wasting money, had the Tories proposed 200 F35's we might be able to defend ourselves, 65 means maybe 40 to 55 operational which leaves us able to defend at best a province.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We have absolotely no way of defending ourselves against the potential enemies we might face, USSR China or the US, we don't even have enough force to make an invasion even slightly expensive, we have utterly relied on the US for decades and even with a couple of squadrons of F35 we still will. In essense we arn't doing nearly enough to be independant therefore we are just wasting money, had the Tories proposed 200 F35's we might be able to defend ourselves, 65 means maybe 40 to 55 operational which leaves us able to defend at best a province.

Even if your allied with a power like the States you have to make an effort to have a concerted defense strategy. The American's aren't going to spill blood for us, if we just sit back and let then defend us.

As one President who is universally hated stated to our Prime Minister, one day a president and it might not be this one, will get sick of carrying the load for North American Defense.

There are also minimum defense considerations to maintain membership in NATO and NORAD.

you also can't just assume that America is going to put our defense as a priority over their own aims and objectives.

Your right, we don't have a huge Military, we now have a very competent military, but the idea of it is to hold the enemy off until help comes, and even a small military can bleed the crap out of an invasion force on our home turf, tear the guts out of enemy logistics and slow down the advance.

But unless your willing to allow American Aircraft to base on our bases, have American's patrol our coastal waters for us, and American's to decide our defense policy without asking us you need to have a balanced and effective military so we at least get a seat at that table.

If you say to the American's that we can't defend ourselves and we want to cheap out and let you do that, then you are putting something that is a key part of your sovereignty into the American's hands, and they will decide every aspect of defense in North America with us being treated as a client state, and eventually, they will make us pay for that.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Even if your allied with a power like the States you have to make an effort to have a concerted defense strategy. The American's aren't going to spill blood for us, if we just sit back and let then defend us.

As one President who is universally hated stated to our Prime Minister, one day a president and it might not be this one, will get sick of carrying the load for North American Defense.

There are also minimum defense considerations to maintain membership in NATO and NORAD.

you also can't just assume that America is going to put our defense as a priority over their own aims and objectives.

Your right, we don't have a huge Military, we now have a very competent military, but the idea of it is to hold the enemy off until help comes, and even a small military can bleed the crap out of an invasion force on our home turf, tear the guts out of enemy logistics and slow down the advance.

But unless your willing to allow American Aircraft to base on our bases, have American's patrol our coastal waters for us, and American's to decide our defense policy without asking us you need to have a balanced and effective military so we at least get a seat at that table.

If you say to the American's that we can't defend ourselves and we want to cheap out and let you do that, then you are putting something that is a key part of your sovereignty into the American's hands, and they will decide every aspect of defense in North America with us being treated as a client state, and eventually, they will make us pay for that.

We already did, they have been in charge of our defence policy since the late 50's and they do make us pay for it.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you say to the American's that we can't defend ourselves and we want to cheap out and let you do that, then you are putting something that is a key part of your sovereignty into the American's hands, and they will decide every aspect of defense in North America with us being treated as a client state, and eventually, they will make us pay for that.

If you think we can defend ourselves...you are truly deluded.

Cut the military budget in ten...give that money to health care and social programs. There - I fixed the country.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by evman150

If you think we can defend ourselves...you are truly deluded.

Cut the military budget in ten...give that money to health care and social programs. There - I fixed the country.

Far less deluded then you, you fixed nothing considering the inefficient use of money by both our health care and social programs.

We could probably fix both of those by not increasing funds but improving how the money is spent and cutting half of the administration budgets out of their overall budgets.

There I fixed the country.

[Slava]

I don't think I have the answers to fix the country, but is it too much to ask for the PM and cabinet to not willingly mislead parliament? Is it really asking a lot for them not not outright lie?

I get partisanship, but that's past the line.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think I have the answers to fix the country, but is it too much to ask for the PM and cabinet to not willingly mislead parliament? Is it really asking a lot for them not not outright lie?

If he's actually a Straussian (as this article and this article hypothesize), then yes, yes it is.

[edslunch]

I just heard a clip of Harper from the last election campaign where he said "we have signed a contract that shields us from cost increases". Now it seems not only have the costs increased dramatically but Harper now says there was never any contract.

Is this incompetence or deceit?

[karl262]

In fact it was reported nearly two years ago by the Globe and Mail, in the same June 11, 2010, story that first stamped what is now conceded to be an incomplete accounting on the public mind. Drawing on "secret cabinet documents," the paper reported that the total cost of the as-yet-unannounced purchase of 65 jets was not $9 billion, as it had earlier reported, but $16 billion, once maintenance costs of $7 billion over 20 years were factored in. However, way at the bottom of the story there appears this note: "In addition, the government is predicting that the operating costs to fly the stealth fighters over two decades will reach $9.6 billion."

There it was, all this time, hiding in plain sight. The Globe didn't realize its significance, and neither did anyone else. It's clear from the story that the number the government was working with internally was $26 billion. Yet $16 billion became the standard figure in public discussion.

For its part, the government did as little as possible to dispel that impression. Defence department statements at the time make no mention of maintenance or operating costs, but only the $9 billion cost of acquisition. The first acknowledgment of any additional costs I can find is the Oct. 19, 2010, appearance by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence (Materiel), Dan Ross, before the Commons Defence committee, in which he refers vaguely to "sustaining" costs of $250 million to $300 million per year.



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Andre...#ixzz1reUcqP5r

Well there you go then...we had full cost disclosure on Oct 19, 2010.

[oilyfan]

Well there you go then...we had full cost disclosure on Oct 19, 2010

Not sure if you are serious. That is just like the fine print on a credit card terms sheet. I guess that's all that is needed when you are talking about a $10 billion difference.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Not sure if you are serious. That is just like the fine print on a credit card terms sheet. I guess that's all that is needed when you are talking about a $10 billion difference.

And the continual denial from the government, stone-walling and non-attendance at committees and basically just continually misleading the public and parliament.

[wooohooo]

Could someone give me a brief rundown on why the costs on the jets keep soaring so much? Isn't the jet already developed and being manufactured? Why does the cost go from 10's of billions?