F-35 issues

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Rather than the old Napoleonic ("It is enough that we have said it") guff I would like to see the actual documentation, not the web pages that have been so gaily processed for us with pretty colours and snazzy graphics. I'm not getting an honest, open, and helpful answer to what is a very simple question: "What is the best way for a taxpayer to see all the documentation pertaining to Canada's F-35 deal?"

That is ALL the information one needs, and is the information the public gets to see. This is about all the information the public have seen on past deals as well.

Here is a corollary: how can a taxpayer research all the meetings, lobbying, closed events, open and closed briefings, and internal governmental discussions that led to the Canadian government selecting the F-35? Technical features that are military and/or trade secrets are not what I am asking for.

So, that's a pretty simple request.

No arms deal in the past have had this level of disclosure, None. Not the CF-18 deal, not the Leopard 2 deal. What you are asking for are cables kept in secret for benefits of both parties. A release of such amount of data would seriously undermine both the Canadian government's and Lockheed's ability to negotiate future deals with other partners.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

That is ALL the information one needs, and is the information the public gets to see.

Hee hee... I really, really think you are misunderstanding my simple questions. From Post #166:

Originally Posted by cr9527

As for Secrecy, the whole thing has been done in the open, there is nothing secret about it.

FAIL

Thanks anyways. Can someone please take over and answer my questions in an honest, open manner for the benefit of our members and readers?

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Hee hee... I really, really think you are misunderstanding my simple questions. From Post #166:FAIL

A sly debating tactic, intended to win the argument, but not to gain the truth.

I was assuming your statement of "Non-Secrecy" was bound within reason.

You cannot expect the government to provide you with every talks, negotiations, and discussions regarding the deal. It has never been done before for any other deal because it is damaging to both parties of the contract.

Thanks anyways. Can someone please take over and answer my questions in an honest, open manner for the benefit of our members and readers?

Speak for yourself, your debate tactics is boiling down to, "I want to see everything the government does in some kind of a declassified document that details every dialog of the deal, Or else we need an open competition regardless of how poor the historical records of such a process".

Everything the public has been provided in the past on other deals has been provided in the F-35 deal. What you are asking for is beyond reason.

So what if the information provided to you is on a website? It is the official website of OUR Air Force. Has that not enough Authority?

The website has extensive information on:
--Cost breakdown
--Industrial benefits
--Delivery times
--Additional cost should we leave the JSF program then come back
--Requirements
--Analysis of PBO's cost estimates

ALL of the topics debated in this thread(except your latest one) are covered in the above link.

Your request for full release of dialog is simply outrageous.

Can you provide a SINGLE military or even civilian deal that provides the information you are demanding?
If not, then your request is simple unreasonable, and is meant to only demonstrate your point that there are SOME secrets within the deal, and NOT how we need an open competition, or that F-35 isn't the right plane.

[stampeder]

Thankfully we live in a democracy and not a police state. Taxpayers are free to dissent and disagree with the carefully processed "message" found on government web sites and in the words of spokespersons. I would like to break past all that nonsense and get right to the heart of the matter at hand i.e. how was the F-35 selected, why was it chosen without a proper competition, and why are such efforts being taken to thwart open discussion of such questions? At present those simple, clear questions are being treated only as rhetorical and dangerous, which is a disservice to our members and readers.

This thread now reminds me of a comical anecdote in which a certain recent Prime Minister gave an answer to a request for "proof" that was almost verbal stunt-flying in it's pretzel-like flow.

Originally Posted by Jean Chretien

A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

Hilarious, but deeply cynical and disrespectful. Today's government is following that illogic perfectly with it's "message" regarding the F-35 deal.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Thankfully we live in a democracy and not a police state. Taxpayers are free to dissent and disagree with the carefully processed "message" found on government web sites and in the words of spokespersons.

Yeah? Name one occasion where a large government deal was fully documented to the extent of your request.

I would like to break past all that nonsense and get right to the heart of the matter at hand i.e. how was the F-35 selected, why was it chosen without a proper competition, and why are such efforts being taken to thwart open discussion of such questions?

You never asked these questions, your request was extremely vague.

How was it selected:
We have already paid for MoU, it meets the requirements, it costs the lowest (next to Super Hornets), and it has the largest room for upgradability.

No brainer.

Why was there no proper competition:

Leaving the F-35 for shopping for other fighters would cost us an estimated $850 Million signing fee should we decide that F-35 is infact the right aircraft.

Further, no other aircraft meet the required criteria of Sensor Fusion, Survivability, and growth potential

It's like picking which TV to buy when only one is an HDTV that cost as much as a standard CRT.

[stampeder]

I sure hope someone can provide honest and open answers to my simple questions. I would like to get to the bottom of why the F-35 was selected in secrecy with no competitive bid process. One possibility I know of would be to hope for good results upon the lodging of requests via the Access To Information Act.

[runnin']

Wow, some sure have a bee in their bonnet about this deal. Stampeder, you can disagree all you want and ask all the questions you want but at the end of the day, the government will make its decisions based on info and data that they sometimes cannot release for many reasons. You may not like it, but that's life. In every single decision that every single level of government makes across Canada, there are Canadians that don't like the decision and want it personally explained to them so they can point out their objections and perspective personally and have the government involved go, "Wow, you're right! We've gotta change this right away!"

If you don't like it, you can always cast your vote accordingly next election. Other than that, you're out of luck my friend. Their going to buy the jets they think are best for Canada instead of doing what Chretien did with the Sea Kings as they started dropping from the sky.

[stampeder]

That's completely wrong to me, thanks. Good thing our military personnel out in the field don't fold like that.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by stampeder

Yeesh, I wish you hadn't said such a thing. I hope we can stick to the F-35 topic from now on.

Fair enough ... I'll repost in case someone takes what I said out of context and is inadvertently offended.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

You have ignored EVERYTHING I've said for the past page of replies.

If the plane is so great and so unique it would easily win an open tender. There's no way that plane is only going to cost what Harper has promised it will cost.

Originally Posted by cr9527

Half of a military's Job is to fight wars, another half is to deter wars.

Our wars don't involve fighters attacking each other. This won't change.

Originally Posted by cr9527

Don't take the peace time for granted.

What peace time ... we've been at war for the best part of a decade now.

There's been little evidence that we suddenly need a much more advanced plane. And I haven't seen any convincing argument on why a want another widowmaker.

I'm also not sure that this plane can actually do what is advertised ... shouldn't we be deferring this purchase until these planes are actually in service - so we don't buy something that won't even do it's job.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

I sure hope someone can provide honest and open answers to my simple questions. I would like to get to the bottom of why the F-35 was selected in secrecy with no competitive bid process.

I've answered you, given the price, and capability of the F-35 compared to other fighters, it is the best deal by far.

Originally Posted by stampeder

One possibility I know of would be to hope for good results upon the lodging of requests via the Access To Information Act

That would do squat if you think the government is deceiving you as the information released will still be controlled by the government.

Originally Posted by nfitz

If the plane is so great and so unique it would easily win an open tender.

If we do, it will cost us penalties for leaving the JSF program, and should it turn out to be the right aircraft, we have to pay entry fees of 800-900 Million.

So, if it is so great and so unique, opening a tender would only cost us around 1 Billion for Nothing.

There's no way that plane is only going to cost what Harper has promised it will cost.

Have you seen my cost analysis or even the USAF budget of YF2011? Or even numerous comparisons and reviews of both the DND's estimate and PBO's estimate?

Our wars don't involve fighters attacking each other. This won't change.

Unless we get sub-par fighters that can't match the potential adversaries.

We don't see any air battles on our airspace because we currently have a competent air force. Their job is not only to intercept any threat, but also to deter any possible threat from occuring, simply by being efficient, effective, and up to date.

What peace time ... we've been at war for the best part of a decade now.

Afghanistan is hardly a war. It impacts us minimally, and to my mind, it isn't a war.

There's been little evidence that we suddenly need a much more advanced plane.

When we had Hornets, third world countries had Mig-21s and mig-29s at best. Our Hornets could handle them fine. Soviets had Su-27s, and mig-29s which our CF-18s could fight toe to toe with.

Now third world countries are moving onto fighters in the class of Rafale, Super Hornet, and Typhoons, even if we upgrade our CF-18s to the above, we would not gain sufficient advantage to prevent our jets to become widowmakers. And when Russia gets their PAKFA, the Chinese get the J-20 up and running, our fighter jets will definitely become flying coffins should we tangle with them.

Further, with the advent of more advanced Anti-air missiles on the battlefield, the F-35 would not only provide us with greater survivability, but also greater flexibility.

Further, the F-35 is the only aircraft with Ballistic Missile detection and tracking capability, and its far superior air to ground capability gives our pilots a far easier time and effectiveness in our NATO missions.

So in summary, they are necessary Domestically due to improving Russia and Chinese threat, and Expeditionarily, due to improving SAMs, and fighters from third world nations.

And I haven't seen any convincing argument on why a want another widowmaker.

It wouldn't be nearly as a widowmaker as if we would get the alternatives. They lack Stealth to be as survivable.

I'm also not sure that this plane can actually do what is advertised ... shouldn't we be deferring this purchase until these planes are actually in service - so we don't buy something that won't even do it's job.

First of all, just because the plane goes into service, doesn't mean denialists would stop doubting them. This went with every advanced piece of gear that has ever been put into production. From F-22, to F-15, from Eurofighter, to the Rafale, from the Abrams to Bradley. Denialists continue to dismiss their capabilities until they score some actual kills.

Secondly, by the time F-35 goes into full active service, we would be pushed WAY back in line for delivery. Somewhere around 2020-2025. By that time, we would be lucky just to keep ONE of our hornets flying.

Originally Posted by nfitz

I think it's an important part of the debate. Should we trust the judgement of those in the military who think we need this particular plane, rather than one that simply fulfills are current capabilities. Perhaps not so much the trained killer aspect, but the "new toy" aspect.

The civilians are terrible in estimating what the military needs. The Whiz kids back in the 60s are a testament to that.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Have you seen my cost analysis or even the USAF budget of YF2011? Or even numerous comparisons and reviews of both the DND's estimate and PBO's estimate?

Nope. Are you saying that we can get the plane for Harper's estimates - or are you saying he is a liar.

Originally Posted by cr9527

We don't see any air battles on our airspace because we currently have a competent air force.

What do you mean? It's not like anyone would suddenly be invading us if we didn't have an airforce. USA and Russia could invade anytime they wanted now. Do you think Denmark or St. Pierre et Miquelon would be invading?

I'm not understanding your comment at all.

[runnin']

Stampeder
That's completely wrong to me, thanks. Good thing our military personnel out in the field don't fold like that.

Really, eh? Soldiers follow their orders. They don't question or complain or wage some kind of web campaign to overturn them, so that reference doesn't really fit. And it's a good thing our military personnel don't behave like that, that's for the politicians.

[stampeder]

I would like to have a clear, full understanding of why the goverment is proceeding with the F-35 deal, which was born in secrecy and was not subjected to proper scrutiny along the principles of fiscal conservatism. I'm not interested in comments that drift from that topic.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

I would like to have a clear, full understanding of why the goverment is proceeding with the F-35 deal, which was born in secrecy and was not subjected to proper scrutiny along the principles of fiscal conservatism. I'm not interested in comments that drift from that topic.

Because it's the most advanced, most capable and least costly platform that should we back out now for the sake of considering lesser deals, it could cost us a BILLION Dollars.

Would you like to shell out a billion?

Originally Posted by niftz

Nope. Are you saying that we can get the plane for Harper's estimates - or are you saying he is a liar.

The USAF Budget estimate from FY 2012, of FY 2016 of the F-35A is at 89 Million of non-recurring flyaway cost, which is expectedly higher than recurring flyaway cost. If you take into account this, the recurring flyaway cost is around $71 Million given that FY2011 and FY2012's non-recurring/recurring ratio is ~1.22

Does $71 million sound familiar to you?

As for the studies about PBO's cost analysis goes, by Cranfield University, DND and finally the Air Force.

What do you mean? It's not like anyone would suddenly be invading us if we didn't have an airforce. USA and Russia could invade anytime they wanted now. Do you think Denmark or St. Pierre et Miquelon would be invading?

If that were the case, why do we need an Air Force? Heck, why do we need an Army?

YES, if our Air Force didn't exist or is incompetent, Russians would attempt to push into the Arctic they have been eager to dominate for the past 5 decades.

Do you think the Russians flying bombers into our territory for fun?

Not only is the F-35 beneficial in detering and defeating hostile threat, it provides far superior flexibility as well as ground support capability and survivability should we encounter another NATO expedition.