[Newsbot]

Title: DND officials still want F-35 despite controversy, cost concerns
Category: Military
Posted By: Regina
Date: 2012-05-02 06:13:48
Canadian

[andyt]

If the F-35 is the only plane that will do the job, and we need it, then buy it. The only thing I object to is the attempt to bullshit us about the price. That makes me think the case for getting this plane isn't as strong as they make out.

[andyt]

$1:

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page says National Defence's process to buy equipment is broken if the way it handled the F-35 fighter jet program is normal.
In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CBC's Power & Politics, Page pointed to committee testimony by top department officials who said the way they handled the process to buy the F-35 is the way they usually do it.
If that process is normal, Page said, then it's "broken. Completely broken. And wrong."
Officials gave one estimate to cabinet, he said, that included the full costs of the plane for the complete lifespan, but gave another estimate to MPs.
"To tell Parliament, effectively, to tell Canadians, that, well, actually it's a much smaller number, that's wrong," Page said.
Earlier in the day, Page testified at a committee that National Defence withheld information when he was preparing his controversial report on the costs of the F-35s, and he later indicated he thinks Canadians were misled about the true costs of buying the fighter jets.
Opposition MPs, including interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, reacted to testimony from Page and other officials at the public accounts committee meeting by saying the government "lied" to the Canadian people about the F-35 costs and didn't share its own internal cost estimates with the public.
During his hour of testimony, Page told MPs he has now learned in the wake of Auditor General Michael Ferguson's report released in April that his office didn't get all the information it asked DND for when he was trying to calculate the full life cycle costs of the planes the government is considering buying to replace the CF-18 fleet. Page's report was done in response to a request from the Commons finance committee.
When asked why he didn't get everything he asked for, Page responded, "We don’t know the reason for that."
"We also asked for information on their methodology and did not receive it," Page said.
Conservative MP Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, had a tense exchange with Page during the meeting when he challenged the budget officer to explain why he calculated costs over 30 years while DND uses a 20-year cycle.
"I see actually no logic as a budget officer to use 20 years when we know that the real life cycle is going to be 30 years, potentially more," Page said, adding that the CF-18 life cycle is turning out to be around 40 years.
Just because the government has used the 20-year estimate for decades doesn't mean it's right, Page said.
Alexander suggested Page should be using the same time period as DND, since it is the department buying the plane, but Page shot back that taxpayers are the ones picking up the tab and that it is his job to provide independent analysis of government spending.
When he spoke to reporters after his testimony, Page was asked about comments he made on CBC's The House on Saturday when he said it looked as if the government kept two sets of books for F-35 estimates — one for internal use and one for the public.
Ferguson's report showed that cabinet was told in 2010 the planes would cost $25 billion. But in response to Page's report in March 2011, DND said the price tag was $15 billion. The difference in numbers is what has prompted opposition MPs to accuse the government of hiding the true costs of buying the planes.
"I don't think we should be providing different numbers," Page said Thursday. It would enhance trust in Parliament if the same numbers that were given to cabinet were given to the public, he said.
When asked if the government wanted Canadians to think the planes would cost less than was internally estimated, Page said yes.
NDP MP Malcolm Allen said after the meeting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and MacKay both chose to communicate the lower number to Canadians.
"They tried to minimize the cost, to make it look as if it was a better program and a cheaper program than it was. Mr. Page is absolutely correct," he said.
Rae, who doesn't normally sit on the public accounts committee, said Harper and his government also chose to attack Page and the opposition when they said the figure must be higher than the $15 billion instead of revealing its $25-billion estimate.
"They lied to the people of Canada before the election and they lied to them during the election about the real cost of the plane," said Rae.
Harper did "not tell the people of Canada the truth that he knew about the potential cost of this project," according to Rae.
In his opening statement, Page said he wanted to make it clear that his office did take operating costs into account when it calculated that the full life cycle costs for 65 F-35s would be close to $30 billion. DND officials testified earlier in the week that they didn't think his report included operating costs when the department responded to it and gave its $15-billion figure.
Page also said that his office understood it had been given all relevant information on the life cycle costs from DND, as per the request from the finance committee, but that "it has since become evident that the government's public figures did not include components of full life cycle costs" as required by the motion.
The budget officer also told MPs that the figures in Ferguson's report, confirmed by DND and its minister, MacKay, bring DND's estimates for full life cycle costs in line with his own.
Page appeared at the committee for one hour, ahead of the same department officials who testified on Tuesday and who were back for a second time.
On Tuesday, the deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, Robert Fonberg, and other DND officials criticized the methodology Page used in his report. That report sparked controversy because Page's estimates for buying 65 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin as part of the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter program were more than double the government's estimates.
Fonberg was asked Thursday to respond to Page's statements earlier in the morning and he told MPs he stands by his belief that the PBO did not include operating costs in his calculations. He said DND has found no evidence that he did and that Page has been asked for clarification but hasn't provided it yet.
He also told the committee that he's unsure why Page drew the conclusion that he only received partial information from DND.
"To the best of my knowledge we fully responded to the PBO's request," Fonberg said.
Michelle d'Auray, secretary of the Treasury Board, told the committee that when her department considers requests from the government to buy new assets, it uses a 20-year time frame for estimated costs in order to make a decision.
Treasury Board has not received an approval request for the funds to buy the F-35, she said.
François Guimont, deputy minister of public works and government services, again expressed his confidence in the new secretariat that is being set up in response to Ferguson's findings to oversee the purchase of a new fleet of planes. The government said that DND would continue to evaluate options for replacing the CF-18s but at the same time it named the new oversight body the F-35 Secretariat, which opposition MPs said made it clear the government is intent on buying the Lockeed Martin model.
Public Works and Government Services Minister Rona Ambrose confirmed on Wednesday that the government has now dropped "F-35" from the group's name.
Lt-Gen. André Deschamps, who on Tuesday said the air force is preparing to acquire F-35s, told MPs that when DND was analyzing options for new planes it looked at what technology is needed to respond to future threats. He said those threats include the proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile systems in some countries, he didn't name which ones, and said today's aircraft aren't well-equipped to respond to the "deadly" systems.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/kevin-page-say ... 25811.html

[Thanos]

$1:

Lt-Gen. André Deschamps, who on Tuesday said the air force is preparing to acquire F-35s, told MPs that when DND was analyzing options for new planes it looked at what technology is needed to respond to future threats. He said those threats include the proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile systems in some countries, he didn't name which ones, and said today's aircraft aren't well-equipped to respond to the "deadly" systems.

Bullshit. Oh gee, I guess I forgot about the thousands and thousands of helpless allied planes that the Taliban and the Iraqis have been shooting down since 2001.

From leaky used submarines that kill our own sailors to untested fighter planes where we can't even get an honest price estimate from anyone involved in the purchase. Regardless of who's in charge of the government, everyone in procurement at DND should be fired on general principles.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

DND needs to get their heads out of their asses and spring for the SuperHornets.

-J.

[Freakinoldguy]

Give it up for christs sake. No same government is gonna let you purchase the F35's at that hugely inflated price just so you can stroke your overblown egos.

Statement like this make me wonder if NDHQ is being staffed by the delusional wing of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

[ShepherdsDog]

invest the money into the navy instead. The pollution washing up on Canada's shore is a more pressing concern. The Americans are already monitoring the south with drones......which may be a cheaper alternative to manned F-35s. They can be used for military and environmental monitoring in the north.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos Thanos:

$1:

Lt-Gen. André Deschamps, who on Tuesday said the air force is preparing to acquire F-35s, told MPs that when DND was analyzing options for new planes it looked at what technology is needed to respond to future threats. He said those threats include the proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile systems in some countries, he didn't name which ones, and said today's aircraft aren't well-equipped to respond to the "deadly" systems.

Bullshit. Oh gee, I guess I forgot about the thousands and thousands of helpless allied planes that the Taliban and the Iraqis have been shooting down since 2001.

Yeah, cuz Hussein was, and the Taliban are, the only assholes out there
I guess countries like Iran or North Korea (to name but two) aren't on your radar?
However, I won't argue that commiting to buying untested military equipment isn't the smartest way to buy stuff.

Kind'a reminds me of the first time my old man bought a brand new car. He test drove it around the car lot for about 3 minutes before buying it

[Thanos]

Allied air power hasn't been under any significant threat from enemy aircraft or ground defence systems since the Vietnam war. If our current ECM pods are already doing an effective job for a tiny fraction of the cost of a single F35, why invest in the F35 at all? For the type of enemies we're likely to face into the forseeable future, stealth capabilities are a Cadillac-level of luxury, not a necessity.

If this purchase goes ahead as-is it'll be worse than all of the Liberals' boondoggles combined. The genuinely conservative thing to do would be to back off from the purchase and hold Lockheed-Martin's feet to the fire until they cut the BS and come out with an honest price. Don't buy anything from them until everything is out in the open. If Lockheen keeps stonewalling then tell them to fuck off and commit ourselves to effective and already-existing systems that will come in at a proper price and still be more than capable of getting the job done for the next two decades.

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

invest the money into the navy instead. The pollution washing up on Canada's shore is a more pressing concern. The Americans are already monitoring the south with drones......which may be a cheaper alternative to manned F-35s. They can be used for military and environmental monitoring in the north.

No doubt - if we save a couple billion on planes (buying Super Hornets instead perhaps), maybe we could actually afford three JSS instead of two - nevermind the fact that we need new DDHs ASAP.

That, coupled with a few dozen Globalhawk drones (or indigenously designed ones if the US won't sell them to us), would provide better bang for our bck.

[OnTheIce]

The question is, do we NEED that many planes?

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The question is, do we NEED that many planes?

We probably need more than the 65 we're planning to order, given that we are the second largest nation in the world.

I think the question is do we really need stealth?

If it's yes, then we need fewer super expensive planes (F-35s).

If not, we need cheaper planes that will allow us to buy more airframes.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The question is, do we NEED that many planes?

We probably need more than the 65 we're planning to order, given that we are the second largest nation in the world.

I think the question is do we really need stealth?

If it's yes, then we need fewer super expensive planes (F-35s).

If not, we need cheaper planes that will allow us to buy more airframes.

The thing is that the rest of the world is moving towards low observable fighters. See F-22 and F-35. See PAK FA. See J-20. We should follow suit.

Considering that the how long we operate a primary fighter, if we fork out billions for a rehash of a 1970's era plane the RCAF is going to be behind the technological curve ball for the next 40+ years.

The Super Bugs may be suitable as an INTERM replacement only, something to run for 10-15 years until we can get a better deal on F-35's or something better comes down the pipe.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The question is, do we NEED that many planes?

We probably need more than the 65 we're planning to order, given that we are the second largest nation in the world.

I think the question is do we really need stealth?

If it's yes, then we need fewer super expensive planes (F-35s).

If not, we need cheaper planes that will allow us to buy more airframes.

Why does the size of Canada affect the amount of planes we purchase?

[Canadian_Mind]

Because you can only cover so much ground with a given number of aircraft. As it is you have to travel between 1000 and 3000km to reach the edges of Canadian airspace from the current primary bases in one direction. The longer the range, the more time the planes need to fly in order to reach the mission target. The longer they are in the air, the more maintinence hours they need on the ground. The more time wasted flying to a mission target, and the more hours on the ground wasted, the less time you actually have aircraft in the target zone. Too make up for this, you need more aircraft.