How will the Harper crew make up for losses in the CPP fund that was invested into F-35 developement firms?
F-35 program to get overhaul after scathing AG report
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I think the way that works is the hammer is bought at $4 and the price inflated on the books to whatever they want and that 'extra money' is just shuffled into a 'black budge program'.
Whose will hit production first? The original or the Chinese knock off made from cyber-stolen designs?
Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20
Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20
F-35 costs had 'significant things missing'
Significant things were missing from the Canadian government's cost estimates for F-35 fighter jets, Auditor General Michael Ferguson told MPs on the public accounts committee today.
Ferguson faced questions in Ottawa from MPs on both sides of the table over his hard-hitting report into the process to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets with F-35 fighter jets.
Ferguson wrote in his April 3 report that the department didn't exercise due diligence in choosing the F-35 to replace the CF-18, wasn't forthcoming with Parliament about its true estimated cost and made key decisions without required approvals or proper documentation.
His report also showed the department had internal estimates that 65 F-35 jets would cost $25 billion over 20 years, but would only admit to a cost of $14.7 billion. Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino avoided answering questions about the full cost, insisting the jets would be $9 billion, despite months of formal and informal requests.
"What we identified was there were some significant things missing from the life-cycle costs," Ferguson said, pointing to attrition, upgrades and "the fact that these aircraft were going to last for 36 years, not 20 years."
"I don’t believe that we were nitpicking in any way, I think we were saying that some significant things were missing."
Conservative MPs now say the government was using two different numbers, not including full operating costs in the numbers provided to Page despite government rules that say those costs must be included in estimates.
But both Treasury Board and Department of National Defence rules require all costs for the lifespan of a major purchase to be included in estimates.
Cabinet approved budget
NDP MP Malcolm Allen tried to tie Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to the decision to buy the F-35s, but Ferguson wouldn't say which cabinet ministers would have known the full cost when they signed onto the plan to spend $25 billion on the planes.
"Those budget items, those budgets were approved. They went through normal process, but I certainly don’t have with me, or wouldn’t even I guess have access to information about who saw what when, other than to say it went through normal process. It was approved," Ferguson said.
Ferguson seemed cautious, speaking slowly and consulted frequently with the officials sitting on either side of him.
F-35 costs had 'significant things missing' - Politics - CBC News
Significant things were missing from the Canadian government's cost estimates for F-35 fighter jets, Auditor General Michael Ferguson told MPs on the public accounts committee today.
Ferguson faced questions in Ottawa from MPs on both sides of the table over his hard-hitting report into the process to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets with F-35 fighter jets.
Ferguson wrote in his April 3 report that the department didn't exercise due diligence in choosing the F-35 to replace the CF-18, wasn't forthcoming with Parliament about its true estimated cost and made key decisions without required approvals or proper documentation.
His report also showed the department had internal estimates that 65 F-35 jets would cost $25 billion over 20 years, but would only admit to a cost of $14.7 billion. Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino avoided answering questions about the full cost, insisting the jets would be $9 billion, despite months of formal and informal requests.
"What we identified was there were some significant things missing from the life-cycle costs," Ferguson said, pointing to attrition, upgrades and "the fact that these aircraft were going to last for 36 years, not 20 years."
"I don’t believe that we were nitpicking in any way, I think we were saying that some significant things were missing."
Conservative MPs now say the government was using two different numbers, not including full operating costs in the numbers provided to Page despite government rules that say those costs must be included in estimates.
But both Treasury Board and Department of National Defence rules require all costs for the lifespan of a major purchase to be included in estimates.
Cabinet approved budget
NDP MP Malcolm Allen tried to tie Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to the decision to buy the F-35s, but Ferguson wouldn't say which cabinet ministers would have known the full cost when they signed onto the plan to spend $25 billion on the planes.
"Those budget items, those budgets were approved. They went through normal process, but I certainly don’t have with me, or wouldn’t even I guess have access to information about who saw what when, other than to say it went through normal process. It was approved," Ferguson said.
Ferguson seemed cautious, speaking slowly and consulted frequently with the officials sitting on either side of him.
F-35 costs had 'significant things missing' - Politics - CBC News
American manufacturers reeled in Canadian politicians to buy F-35s | Financial Post Magazine | Financial Post
Wow, there is some serious **** going on with this file.
Auditor 'got it wrong' on F-35 cost, DND officials tell MPs - The Globe and Mail
Wow, there is some serious **** going on with this file.
Auditor 'got it wrong' on F-35 cost, DND officials tell MPs - The Globe and Mail
And I recall 2 dollars worth of steak being a large meal.
Time and tech has changed. Wait for the new costs for next gen drones - they will soon be over to 2 hd million mark.
Back on topic - Senior DND Officials have on a consistent basis mislead parliament thru the Minister- No heads roll- Why?
Time and tech has changed. Wait for the new costs for next gen drones - they will soon be over to 2 hd million mark.
Back on topic - Senior DND Officials have on a consistent basis mislead parliament thru the Minister- No heads roll- Why?
Because it would be their heads rolling if they did not do as ordered. When was the last successful prosecution of somebody for being 'misleading'. None so where is the incentive to not be misleading when it makes you much more money than being honest could ever net you. There is only one way to make that unattractive, sack him and prosecute him and the ones he exposes. Their replacements are going to be hesitant to go down that same path, or they should be, in reality you fixed one cog in a 200 tooth gear that is as misleading as the piece removed.
The job of forces is to follow the orders of government, period.
If they don't, then there's a risk of coup when you get a stupid government making idiotic requests.
In exchange for that loyalty, the deal is... if you've got a problem with it, take it out on the politicians.
Obviously someone in government told forces to find a way to justify a financial decision, and somewhere within forces they found someone willing/able to do it without vomiting over the report, which wouldn't be too hard, because people in forces normally like impressive hardware, and F-35's are very impressive.
Whether or not they're actually useful with today's method of implementing force from the air is another story. Drones and satelites are making F-35s obsolete, which might not be so sad were it not for the fact that they are so expensive.
Canada could launch its own space-based network of orbiting GPS satelites and have a fleet of 1500 drones to patrol the arctic and the coastlines for less money than what the F-35s will cost to purchase and maintain. Drones would cost less and be more useful to Canada's strategic position, plus Canada could have soveriegnty over its own network of space-based orbiting GPS satelites... all for less money.
Something like this happened in the late 70's, when the B-1 bomber was being considered as a replacement for the B-52's. B-1's were cheep compared to F-35's, but they were very expensive for the time.
Shareholders were pushing hard for the B-1, saying that B-52's would not be able to reach their targets through state-of-the-art Soviet phased-array radar. There was so much money to be made.
But there was also cruise missiles, and Jimmy Carter made the correct, un-romatic descision to simply load B-52s with cruise missiles, such that the B-52's did not have to enter Soviet airspace, they just had to get close, and then drop the missiles to cruise in below radar. It was the right thing to do, and people who masturbate with copies of Combat Aircraft Monthly hated him for it.
Personally, what gets me about all this is how people keep forgetting how it was meddling in forces by financial interests that cost Athens the Peleoponesian war.
Athens was strong and rich enough that it should have won that war. If they had, the Mediteranian would have become the Athenian Empire, not the Roman Empire. We would have avoided the dark-ages, and could have been on the moon a thousand years ago.
But no... the ancient Athenian equivalent of shareholders and their druggie MBAs had to push for battle-plans that would require the purchase of what they had to sell, and the result was Athens loosing a war that she should have won.
Last edited:
F-35: Government failed to provide full cost estimate despite order, watchdog says
OTTAWA — Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says National Defence did not provide him with all available information about the cost of the F-35 stealth fighter despite being ordered to do so by a House of Commons committee in fall 2010.
"Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that the Department of National Defence provided the PBO with figures that did not include all operating costs," Page told Parliament's public accounts committee on Thursday.
"The PBO understood that it had been provided with full life-cycle costs from DND as required."
Those operating costs — which have been estimated at around $10 billion over 20 years — have become central to the question of whether Canadians were misled in the weeks before the last federal election.
At that time, Page released a report which estimated that acquiring, maintaining and operating 65 F-35s would cost taxpayers nearly $30 billion.
The Defence Department responded by telling Parliament that the stealth fighter would actually cost $14.7 billion.
It was only last month that Auditor General Michael Ferguson revealed the Defence Department had excluded the operating costs, which meant the full cost was closer to $25 billion.
Defence Department officials have said they did not include operating expenses in reports to the public, such as pilot salaries, fuel and replacement parts, because many of those costs are already associated with Canada's fleet of CF-18s.
They have also indicated they did not know Page's report included operating costs.
Page reconfirmed that his report did just that, adding that "it seems difficult to understand how there could have been any confusion as to whether or not the PBO included operating costs within its estimate."
"Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that the Department of National Defence provided the PBO with figures that did not include all operating costs," Page told Parliament's public accounts committee on Thursday.
"The PBO understood that it had been provided with full life-cycle costs from DND as required."
Those operating costs — which have been estimated at around $10 billion over 20 years — have become central to the question of whether Canadians were misled in the weeks before the last federal election.
At that time, Page released a report which estimated that acquiring, maintaining and operating 65 F-35s would cost taxpayers nearly $30 billion.
The Defence Department responded by telling Parliament that the stealth fighter would actually cost $14.7 billion.
It was only last month that Auditor General Michael Ferguson revealed the Defence Department had excluded the operating costs, which meant the full cost was closer to $25 billion.
Defence Department officials have said they did not include operating expenses in reports to the public, such as pilot salaries, fuel and replacement parts, because many of those costs are already associated with Canada's fleet of CF-18s.
They have also indicated they did not know Page's report included operating costs.
Page reconfirmed that his report did just that, adding that "it seems difficult to understand how there could have been any confusion as to whether or not the PBO included operating costs within its estimate."
Where was the "watchdog" when the liberals bought and paid for submarines that still incur huge originally unreported costs and are useless?
Who knows. I don't visit his website.
Speaking of watchdogs, I actually passed by Don Drummond yesterday. I should've asked for his autograph.
What are the odds any fighter is going to defeat a defensive missile system when that can also be used offensively and the range is similar. For the same price we could have 35 pilots and 3500 armed Kamikaze drones.
Russia says missiles to target US nuclear shield in Europe | World news | guardian.co.uk
Russia says missiles to target US nuclear shield in Europe | World news | guardian.co.uk
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack..
Auditor refutes defence brass on F-35 cost calculations
Ferguson returns to public accounts committee to explain more findings on fighter jet purchase
Auditor General Michael Ferguson responded directly to officials from the Defence Department today, disputing their contention that they aren't required to count the full costs of a project like the F-35 fighter jet procurement.
"I am concerned with suggestions that accurate estimation and the inclusion of personnel, operating and maintenance costs are not important, since they would be incurred regardless of the aircraft selected to replace the CF-18," Ferguson said in his opening remarks to the House of Commons public accounts committee Tuesday.
Defence officials told the same committee May 1 that it is not their practice to include all life-cycle costs in project estimates.
"While we believe in and support life-cycle costing, it is not a requirement established by the office of the auditor general," Ferguson told MPs.
It is, however, required by the department's own policies, as well as by the Treasury Board, which sets spending standards in the federal government.
Ferguson's April 3 report, in which he found the department wasn't upfront about the costs of the fighter jet that defence officials wanted, contained a chart showing internal estimates the department used but didn't disclose to the public.
Those figures, which showed the jets would be billions more than the government had said, were all defence estimates – not auditor general estimates, Ferguson noted.
2nd appearance by Ferguson
Tuesday's meeting is Ferguson's second appearance before MPs studying the process to replace Canada's CF-18 fighter jets with F-35 aircraft, more than a month after his report exposed internal estimates far higher than the ones disclosed publicly.
Ferguson was initially scheduled to appear for a second time before the public accounts committee on May 8, but an unexpected medical treatment left him recovering at home.
During his first appearance, Ferguson told the committee that there was significant information missing from the government's cost estimates for the fighter jets.
MPs wanted to hear from the auditor general a second time, after government officials had the chance to respond to his findings.
Ferguson wrote in his April 3 report that the Department of National Defence didn't exercise due diligence in choosing the F-35 to replace the CF-18, wasn't forthcoming with Parliament about its true estimated cost and made key decisions without required approvals or proper documentation.
His report also showed the department had internal estimates that 65 F-35 jets would cost $25 billion over 20 years, but would only admit to a cost of $14.7 billion. Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino avoided answering questions about the full cost, insisting the jets would be $9 billion, despite months of formal and informal requests.
National Defence official says budget officer wrong
The department had the estimates at the same time that Conservative MPs were criticizing parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page for his estimate that the jets would cost $29 billion over 30 years.
Earlier this month, Robert Fonberg, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, told the committee that Page's methodology was wrong.
Fonberg repeatedly explained to the committee that when estimating the costs of acquiring new aircraft, DND traditionally includes the purchase price and sustainment, or maintenance, costs only, not operating costs. He said that's because those are included in annual budgets for the whole department, which are approved by Parliament.
The same approach was used for the F-35s as the four previous air force equipment procurements, he said.
"In each case, announcements and communications focused only on the costs of acquisition and sustainment, never did we talk about operating costs," he told the committee. "Our approach to costing has never been characterized as full lifecycle, our approach has been consistent and compliant with Treasury Board policy and guidance," said Fonberg.
Treasury Board guidelines for government purchasing, however, demand that estimates include the full cost of an item for as long as the government expects it to last.
Ferguson will have two hours with the committee, with half his time devoted to talking about his office's budget. Officers of Parliament, including Ferguson, voluntarily participated in the federal government's recent round of budget cuts.
Auditor refutes defence brass on F-35 cost calculations - Politics - CBC News
Auditor refutes defence brass on F-35 cost calculations
Ferguson returns to public accounts committee to explain more findings on fighter jet purchase
Auditor General Michael Ferguson responded directly to officials from the Defence Department today, disputing their contention that they aren't required to count the full costs of a project like the F-35 fighter jet procurement.
"I am concerned with suggestions that accurate estimation and the inclusion of personnel, operating and maintenance costs are not important, since they would be incurred regardless of the aircraft selected to replace the CF-18," Ferguson said in his opening remarks to the House of Commons public accounts committee Tuesday.
Defence officials told the same committee May 1 that it is not their practice to include all life-cycle costs in project estimates.
"While we believe in and support life-cycle costing, it is not a requirement established by the office of the auditor general," Ferguson told MPs.
It is, however, required by the department's own policies, as well as by the Treasury Board, which sets spending standards in the federal government.
Ferguson's April 3 report, in which he found the department wasn't upfront about the costs of the fighter jet that defence officials wanted, contained a chart showing internal estimates the department used but didn't disclose to the public.
Those figures, which showed the jets would be billions more than the government had said, were all defence estimates – not auditor general estimates, Ferguson noted.
2nd appearance by Ferguson
Tuesday's meeting is Ferguson's second appearance before MPs studying the process to replace Canada's CF-18 fighter jets with F-35 aircraft, more than a month after his report exposed internal estimates far higher than the ones disclosed publicly.
Ferguson was initially scheduled to appear for a second time before the public accounts committee on May 8, but an unexpected medical treatment left him recovering at home.
During his first appearance, Ferguson told the committee that there was significant information missing from the government's cost estimates for the fighter jets.
MPs wanted to hear from the auditor general a second time, after government officials had the chance to respond to his findings.
Ferguson wrote in his April 3 report that the Department of National Defence didn't exercise due diligence in choosing the F-35 to replace the CF-18, wasn't forthcoming with Parliament about its true estimated cost and made key decisions without required approvals or proper documentation.
His report also showed the department had internal estimates that 65 F-35 jets would cost $25 billion over 20 years, but would only admit to a cost of $14.7 billion. Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino avoided answering questions about the full cost, insisting the jets would be $9 billion, despite months of formal and informal requests.
National Defence official says budget officer wrong
The department had the estimates at the same time that Conservative MPs were criticizing parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page for his estimate that the jets would cost $29 billion over 30 years.
Earlier this month, Robert Fonberg, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, told the committee that Page's methodology was wrong.
Fonberg repeatedly explained to the committee that when estimating the costs of acquiring new aircraft, DND traditionally includes the purchase price and sustainment, or maintenance, costs only, not operating costs. He said that's because those are included in annual budgets for the whole department, which are approved by Parliament.
The same approach was used for the F-35s as the four previous air force equipment procurements, he said.
"In each case, announcements and communications focused only on the costs of acquisition and sustainment, never did we talk about operating costs," he told the committee. "Our approach to costing has never been characterized as full lifecycle, our approach has been consistent and compliant with Treasury Board policy and guidance," said Fonberg.
Treasury Board guidelines for government purchasing, however, demand that estimates include the full cost of an item for as long as the government expects it to last.
Ferguson will have two hours with the committee, with half his time devoted to talking about his office's budget. Officers of Parliament, including Ferguson, voluntarily participated in the federal government's recent round of budget cuts.
Auditor refutes defence brass on F-35 cost calculations - Politics - CBC News
Last edited: