Derek 2.0

By not following through on the lease, it costs the Government far less.........see EH 101 cancellation fees. And as already cited, the "process" allows for non-tendered contracts when there is an urgent demand.

You know not what you speak...........Quebec case law......next And if the deal was finalized, you'd be bitching that Harper saddled Trudeau with a "bad deal" when Irving offered a better one

What "Cabinet rules"? The law governing the GoC procuring items and services was changed to allow sole sourced leasing.....the reason is clear, the GoC didn't intend to purchase the vessel. A MOU is a contract.........Davie wouldn't spend tens of millions on a container ship, nor would the GoC be obligated to return money to Davie, without a legal contract What is waiting cabinet approval is the release of the initial funds for the contractual lease........If the GoC walks away from legal agreements, signed in good (and legal) faith, going forward, they will find the private sector far more difficult to deal with, and like a third world despot, will require money upfront. This is a political move on the part of the Trudeau Liberals, and one that only benefits themselves..........Do you really think the Tories or NDP, if the program went along as planned, would have attacked the GoC on this? Really? This is about spending money, needed by the military, when the Liberals have other interests.....there is no plausible reason for the delay and you can bet if this was in a Liberal riding, it would go forward.

The law allowing sole sourced contracts has been around for decades. I never said Davie was, but the GoC already entered into a contract with Davie, which in turn purchased the Asterix on behalf of the GoC.......if Trudeau bails on the program, Davie will be more than reimbursed for the ship, but that doesn't help our navy, nor the employees at Davie.

What's not to be sure about? The law allowing it was cited, and the process confirmed by the shipbuilding association, the very same group that lambasted the previous Government........hence this is a political move by the Trudeau Liberals. And this has nothing to do with Bombardier, as the C-series isn't critical to the navy, nor did the previous Government sign an agreement with them supporting their business decision.

And in the meantime, 600 workers at Davie will be out of work over the holidays and our navy will be two months further put out.......if Trudeau goes ahead with an interim option that is.

No, it confirmed what I knew.........the Liberals are back!!!!!!

Every loser, of every defense contract, across the World always had the better and cheaper option........ Davie currently has the ship tied up at its yard, Irving doesn't.......full stop.

In other words, we'll drag our feet when it comes to supporting the navy, but press the Forces, well rushing to bring in refugees.......makes sense.

So, per the shipbuilding association of Canada, the Liberals are simply dragging their feet and playing politics.........and hurting the navy: And That should put to rest all of the baseless claims of "shady dealings" on the part of the Harper Government and Davie shipbuilding........

No, I told you, per plane, it is currently less money, but we won't save money in the long run........same goes with the Super Hornet, which is currently less money than the F-35 (~$65 million per), but if wanted to upgrade the avionics it will cost the same (or more) than a production F-35........the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15 and Gripen NG all currently cost as much or more than a LRIP F-35.

He didn't, but several Liberal MPs did............The optics would be interesting to see Trudeau select an aircraft (F-16) now, that was rejected by his father nearly 40 years ago.

No, in US service, the F-16 has one of the smallest average hourly operating costs.......but then, is the most prolific aircraft in American service with the USAF, ANG and USN. Bases, fuel, training, logistics and personal etc will cost the same regardless of the aircraft we select.

Well it's not.......the current flyaway price of a block 50/52 F-16 is ~$50 million per copy, but upgraded with the AN/APG-83 radar and avionics package, per the Taiwan deal, is an additional ~$20-25 million per aircraft.........~$70-75 million for a warmed over F-16 versus ~$80-90 million for the F-35A.....on paper, that is nearly $1 billion in savings for a 65 aircraft buy, but doesn't factor (unlike the F-35) long term training and logistics, nor having to buy any attrition aircraft upfront.........hence the naval renewal isn't going to be funded by selecting a legacy aircraft. And every argument, regardless of how foolish and invalid, made against the F-35A can be made against the F-16 in spades.

Fair enough, but in this thought experiment, we wouldn't purchase the block 60 design, funded by the UAE, since per the contractual agreement between the UAE and the US Government/Lockheed, a portion of our tax dollars would be going to the UAE..........and the UAE would have no reason to offer any form of industrial off-sets. None the less, optics wise, if they decide to fund a replacement inside this mandate, I doubt they would be able to square the circle of a single engine aircraft replacing the Hornet.

No, its factual.........there are currently no "new build" F-16Vs. And how do you know of "good results"? The first upgraded block 50/52 "F-16V", with the AN/APG-83 radar, only completed its first flight last month..........Do you have a source within Edwards AFB or are you making things up again?

What spin? ------- The Star/Canadian Press is reporting that Trudeau's Syrian refugee plan will cost five times more than expected, and he won't be able to bring in his promised 25000 refugees by the end of the year..... If this is true, does this mean the Trudeau Government, in going back on their election promise, is sorta Islamaphobica? I ask since they are precluding single men, well increasing screening overseas and delaying bringing Syrians to Canada........... What's the problem? I thought all this refugees were screened by the UN?

That's not quite true, the "F-16V" is an upgrade for block 50/52 F-16s, that an end user can elect to upgrade their current fleets to or purchase new built aircraft at said standard. The USAF is upgrading a large portion of their current F-16 with the radar of the "F-16V" (AN/APG-83), and the Republic of China, is upgrading their far older block 25 f-16s to said standard. Of course, in USAF service, said aircraft will be replaced by the F-35A.

No, the UAE purchased the block 60 F-16, which uses its own radar (AN/APG-80) versus the radar in the proposed "F-16V" (AN/APG-83).....there is nothing "close" about them.

Bill Sweetman lost all credibility with his UFO/Area 51 mantra years ago.........he'd might as well suggest the USAF will be operating x-wings to contend with Russian tie-fighters..... What he is confused over (in his actual article at aviation week), also suggesting the USAF might consider a purchase of Super Hornets (which is laughable), is an ongoing USAF program to incorporate portions of the Growler's EW suite into current F-16 Wild Weasels (operated by the South Carolina ANG), with the debate being value, in that it might be cheaper to replace said F-16s versus upgrading them in the interim, until they are replaced by the F-35 in the 2030s. Likewise, a USAF study to replace a portion of its F-15C fleet (versus upgrading them) with the latest variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle (that will serve into the 2040s), what Israel now also wants in addition to the F-35, and incorporating said portion of the Growler's EW suite into them (verses the F-16). In neither case will the USAF be operating either aircraft into the 2060s, likewise the latest F-15 costs more than the F-35 (and is not fully developed) and we won't purchase the F-16 because they have "a single engine and can't operate in the Arctic"...........and of course, our Government has no money budgeted for either.............next

Yes indeed, my daughter is in her third year at RMC (and hasn't yet been told to leave), but has mentioned in the article, the officer cadets are preparing for their exams before the Christmas break.....now, per the rules, Officer cadets have to live on base/campus, but for many of the others living on base, the rental market off base isn't much cheaper than parts of Metro Vancouver....... Will Canadian Forces members displaced by Syrian refugees be reimbursed?

Ahhh no, members living in the shacks receive their mail to said shacks, and pay a monthly sum for said accommodations.......plenty of junior members, often on their own for the first time, live on base...... You can spin it how you want, but doesn't change the fact that members of the Canadian Forces will be vacated from their current residences for Syrian refugees, so Trudeau can keep an election promise.........weeks before the Holidays.

Exactly, much ado about nothing........of course, if he was as evil as suggested, he would have stacked the Senate, which he could have done right to the day Trudeau was sworn in.

Exactly, both aircraft with their roots in the 1970s, to be operated out to the 2060s.......none the less: None the less, the US Government gets the final say on any American aircraft sold to Canada, or aircraft containing US produced parts.....

Well you're not disproving that, as the RAF upgrading a portion of the aircraft, to be retired early, will naturally extend the service life of the entire force...........of course, what you fail to (understand?) mention, is this has little to do timelines on a replacement aircraft, but more so, other far larger procurement programs that will drain the procurement budget in said time frame.........namely the replacement of the deterrent, which will dwarf our shipbuilding and fighter replacement program combined.