- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
No I mean this:milnews.ca said:
National Post, 8 Dec 12
And for all the people who said I told you so....
http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1183151.html#msg1183151
They counted the 10% overages in this case.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,260
Global had a piece on the news tonight and it seemed to me that the guy who does the interviewing - Tom Clark - was almost drooling over it. Of course his beardedness Mulcair had the lions share of face time on TV.
Is it me or is he annoying? Has he EVER spent any time in government at ANY level?
Is it me or is he annoying? Has he EVER spent any time in government at ANY level?
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
Jim Seggie said:
Yes: he was a minister (Sustainable Development, Environment, and/or something) in the Charest (Liberal) Government in QC during 2003-06.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,260
E.R. Campbell said:
Thank you Mr. Campbell. Once again I have been spared the "foot in mouth" syndrome!
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,225
- Points
- 1,010
HB_Pencil said:
TODAYS EPISODE OF FUN WITH NUMBERS:
I like how Mr. Ibitson compares the cost of 65 F-35's for 42 years to the annual Ontario health care budget.
On that basis, the annual cost of getting and operating the F-35's would represent only 2.3% of the Ontario Health budget: Not bad. Even better, as Ontario represents about a third of the Canadian population, this means that if health was a National program run by Ottawa, it would likely be three times bigger,, and then, in any given years, Ottawa would spend on the F-35's (and thus the totality of our air defence capability) only .8% of what it would spend on Health.
That seems a reasonable expense to me.
Also, at the "advertised" cost for 42 years derived by KPMG, the annual cost of getting and operating one F-35 comes out to $16,000,000. That would currently buy you (on average) two traffic overpasses in most provinces. Between the municipal, provincial (and territorial) and federal governments, I am willing to bet that we build or rebuild way more than 130 overpasses a year in Canada. And that is at today's cost for overpasses. in 42 years, I am willing to bet that that same 16M$ will buy you only half of one.
The intimated "threat" that the defence budget would consist of nothing more than the F-35's should they be acquired is just complete nonsense. At $46B for 42 years, it will be pretty close to being in line with what ultimately transpired with the F-18's. And for those who weren't around then, the same veiled accusations that it would suck up the whole defence budget were made and we now all know how that turned out.
Remember that all those glitzy figures and financial doomsday scenarios coming out of accounting firm, financial pundits, department of finance, budget officers and treasury board are made by people that consistently try to predict what the economy will be doing next year, and maybe the next one after that and manage to guess wrong most of the time.
Meanwhile, at Defence, we are trying to predict the direction that the whole world will take in the next 25 to 50 years and what the emerging threats to Canada will be in that world. Some of the potential scenarios are scary.
When the same KPMG methodology is applied to potential "competitors" (I use the term loosely), I think we will find out that for the price difference, having the F-35's instead of less capable F-18 E/F's, Eurofighters or Rafales, is a good deal.
Just MHO.
- Reaction score
- 27,128
- Points
- 1,090
The financial situation is never as simple as fans or opponents of the F35 make it out to be. Applying a linear model ("Only $16M/ year!") is as foolish as using a single cost ("$42 Billion dollars!")
The questions really come down to the type of money (capital or operating) and time when it's needed. If the acquisition demands significant capital dollars at the same time as other projects, there may be challenges. Similarly, if the increase in O&M demand aligns with other increases when there's no offsets or new funding, here will also be problems, regardless of the platform chosen.
The other significant restriction in any acquisition project is the availability of qualified individuals to manage the acquisition. The larger the project, usually, the larger the staff to administer it. In periods of fiscal restraint, where DND is shrinking the number of public servants and contractors, and freezing the size of the Reg F, and seeking positions to implement other new capabilities, where will the people come from to execute the project? Perhaps more importantly, if this is set as a priority, what other projects will be delayed or abandoned - and what will the impact of those delays or cancellations be?
The questions really come down to the type of money (capital or operating) and time when it's needed. If the acquisition demands significant capital dollars at the same time as other projects, there may be challenges. Similarly, if the increase in O&M demand aligns with other increases when there's no offsets or new funding, here will also be problems, regardless of the platform chosen.
The other significant restriction in any acquisition project is the availability of qualified individuals to manage the acquisition. The larger the project, usually, the larger the staff to administer it. In periods of fiscal restraint, where DND is shrinking the number of public servants and contractors, and freezing the size of the Reg F, and seeking positions to implement other new capabilities, where will the people come from to execute the project? Perhaps more importantly, if this is set as a priority, what other projects will be delayed or abandoned - and what will the impact of those delays or cancellations be?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Just to show you how ridiculous this is getting, have a listen to what one of our political leaders said about the F-35.
Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair on Global TV’s The West Block came up with these gems during his interview, linked below.
@ 4:12 – “the plane doesn’t exist yet.”
@ 4:42 – “the F-35 can’t work in the arctic.”
@ 4:50 – “the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract.”
@ 5:55 – “basic criteria for purchase not met.”
http://www.globalnews.ca/harpers+oilpatch+wins+in+cnooc+buy+mulcair/6442768752/story.html
And here’s a more balanced panel of journalists on CTV's Question Period who actually know what they’re talking about, starting at the beginning of the video. You need to go to Page 2, the video called “CTV QP: The Scrum on News Headlines”.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/qp/
Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair on Global TV’s The West Block came up with these gems during his interview, linked below.
@ 4:12 – “the plane doesn’t exist yet.”
@ 4:42 – “the F-35 can’t work in the arctic.”
@ 4:50 – “the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract.”
@ 5:55 – “basic criteria for purchase not met.”
http://www.globalnews.ca/harpers+oilpatch+wins+in+cnooc+buy+mulcair/6442768752/story.html
And here’s a more balanced panel of journalists on CTV's Question Period who actually know what they’re talking about, starting at the beginning of the video. You need to go to Page 2, the video called “CTV QP: The Scrum on News Headlines”.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/qp/
What got into the QP panel? Fair, balanced coverage and opinions for the most part.
Maybe they have realized they were flogging a dead horse or maybe they found this thread and got themselves educated
Whatever, it was a pleasant surprise from the usual infantile level of agenda driven coverage that has poured out of the media on the JSF story.
Although the host dude did get a couple of licks in about the new price being so much more than the government's original price while forgetting to mention the time differences in various cost estimates.
As for Mulcair's remarks . . . he's plumbing new depths of clueless. And for him, that is really,really deep.
Maybe they have realized they were flogging a dead horse or maybe they found this thread and got themselves educated
Whatever, it was a pleasant surprise from the usual infantile level of agenda driven coverage that has poured out of the media on the JSF story.
Although the host dude did get a couple of licks in about the new price being so much more than the government's original price while forgetting to mention the time differences in various cost estimates.
As for Mulcair's remarks . . . he's plumbing new depths of clueless. And for him, that is really,really deep.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
An average of about 1 billion dollars per year, for 40 years doesn't seem like that much to me. I don't see how that would be a problem for the military budget, as it includes operational costs. I expect that the Typhoon and Rafale would be more, and if the Conservatives had included those numbers, I doubt they would be in this mess. It wouldn't surprise me if even the Growler with the new radar and engines would be as much.
- Reaction score
- 4,653
- Points
- 1,160
Considering part of that calculation is salaries (pilots and maintainers), fuel, parts and infrastructure that we have to pay regardless of what aircraft we buy, its not a huge number. I want to see the same methodology applied to the current CF-18s to put everything into context.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
According to a report in the Globe and Mail, LGen (ret'd) Charles Bouchard has dropped off the panel of experts the government hired to review the fighter aircraft project, saying he was too busy to take on the task.
The panel is, now, according to the article:
+ James Mitchell of the consulting group Sussex Circle, a former senior civil servant who has served cabinet and Treasury Board;
+ Keith Coulter, former Communications Security Establishment chief and a former fighter pilot;
+ Rod Monette, federal comptroller-general, who also served as a senior bureaucrat in National Defence;
+ Philippe Lagassé, University of Ottawa professor an outspoken critic of the jet procurement.
The panel is, now, according to the article:
+ James Mitchell of the consulting group Sussex Circle, a former senior civil servant who has served cabinet and Treasury Board;
+ Keith Coulter, former Communications Security Establishment chief and a former fighter pilot;
+ Rod Monette, federal comptroller-general, who also served as a senior bureaucrat in National Defence;
+ Philippe Lagassé, University of Ottawa professor an outspoken critic of the jet procurement.
And this story from the Toronto Star's web site, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, states that Ambrose and MacKay will announce a competition will be held. The headline is a bit lurid and misleading, but look at the source.
F-35 purchase to be scrapped by Ottawa
Published 52 minutes ago
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau chief
OTTAWA—More than two years after pledging to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, the Conservative government is ditching that decision and starting from scratch.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Defence Minister Peter MacKay will announce Wednesday afternoon that Ottawa is going back to the drawing board in its search for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornets, according to a source familiar with the announcement.
As well, they are expected to release a study by the accounting firm KPMG showing that the cost of acquiring the fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs was projected to be more than $40 billion over 42 years.
That sticker shock — and problems in the ongoing development of the F-35 — are forcing the Conservative government to finally abandon the fighter they have been stubbornly defending against mounting criticism.
They plan to ditch plans for a sole-source contract and look at other fighters on the market.
And in a bid to quell criticism, officials will take a page from their successful process in 2011 to issue $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts — a decision that stirred little criticism or controversy.
That process will involve consulting with the potential bidders, a independent third-party review and a high-level steering group within government.
Still, it marks a dramatic climb down for the Tories, who have outspoken in their defence of the F-35 and sharply critical of opposition MPs who expressed doubts, despite growing evidence that the jet’s development was getting bogged down and costs were rising.
It’s also a sharp U-turn from July, 2010, when MacKay, Ambrose and then Industry Minister Tony Clement announced Canada’s plans to buy 65 F-35s.
The announcement was done at elaborately staged news conference in Ottawa, featuring a full-sized mock-up of an F-35 alongside an CF-18 flown in for event.
At the time, MacKay declared the F-35 was the only fighter that fit the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
“The F-35’s technological leaps — in terms of sensors, stealth technology, weapons systems, survivability and the integrated nature of its systems — make it a truly fifth generation aircraft,” MacKay said at the time.
“And it is the only fighter to meet the Canadian Forces’ operational and interoperability needs,” he said.
Just weeks later, MacKay flew to the air base in Bagotville, QC., to announce that 24 of the sophisticated fighters would be based there. Another 24 would be stationed at CFB Cole Lake with the remaining 17 to be used for training at a location to be announced later.
F-35 purchase to be scrapped by Ottawa
Published 52 minutes ago
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau chief
OTTAWA—More than two years after pledging to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, the Conservative government is ditching that decision and starting from scratch.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Defence Minister Peter MacKay will announce Wednesday afternoon that Ottawa is going back to the drawing board in its search for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornets, according to a source familiar with the announcement.
As well, they are expected to release a study by the accounting firm KPMG showing that the cost of acquiring the fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs was projected to be more than $40 billion over 42 years.
That sticker shock — and problems in the ongoing development of the F-35 — are forcing the Conservative government to finally abandon the fighter they have been stubbornly defending against mounting criticism.
They plan to ditch plans for a sole-source contract and look at other fighters on the market.
And in a bid to quell criticism, officials will take a page from their successful process in 2011 to issue $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts — a decision that stirred little criticism or controversy.
That process will involve consulting with the potential bidders, a independent third-party review and a high-level steering group within government.
Still, it marks a dramatic climb down for the Tories, who have outspoken in their defence of the F-35 and sharply critical of opposition MPs who expressed doubts, despite growing evidence that the jet’s development was getting bogged down and costs were rising.
It’s also a sharp U-turn from July, 2010, when MacKay, Ambrose and then Industry Minister Tony Clement announced Canada’s plans to buy 65 F-35s.
The announcement was done at elaborately staged news conference in Ottawa, featuring a full-sized mock-up of an F-35 alongside an CF-18 flown in for event.
At the time, MacKay declared the F-35 was the only fighter that fit the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
“The F-35’s technological leaps — in terms of sensors, stealth technology, weapons systems, survivability and the integrated nature of its systems — make it a truly fifth generation aircraft,” MacKay said at the time.
“And it is the only fighter to meet the Canadian Forces’ operational and interoperability needs,” he said.
Just weeks later, MacKay flew to the air base in Bagotville, QC., to announce that 24 of the sophisticated fighters would be based there. Another 24 would be stationed at CFB Cole Lake with the remaining 17 to be used for training at a location to be announced later.
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
Here's what someone thinks a CF Eurofighter Typhoon would look like 
Too soon?
Too soon?
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
According to The Swedish Defence and Sexurity Export Agency the Swedish parliament, the Riksdagen, gave the go ahead to produce the Gripen E.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,728
- Points
- 1,160
As a intermin measure, the RCAF will be buying MILCOT aircraft to maintain their operational readiness. Current plan appears to be missile and bombs duct taped to a Bombardier Global 5000 series. The Quebec government applauds this move as fiscally prudent.
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
Short and sweet from the government's tech briefing on the KWG report, from QMI's David Akin:
Edited to add Bloomberg's (the business news service, not the mayor's) take:
Edited to add Bloomberg's (the business news service, not the mayor's) take:
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
