F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[mentalfloss]

We buy

We don't buy

We buy

We don't buy

We .... don't know if we buy?

"We have not as yet discounted, the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Fantino, associate minister of national defence, told the House defence committee Tuesday.

"None of the partners have. We are not. And we’ll just have to think it through further as time goes on, but we are confident that we will not leave Canada or our men and women in uniform in a lurch, but it’s hypothetical to go any further right now."

Fantino's comments mark a change in tone from previous answers to questions about the possibility of rising costs and design problems with the Lockheed Martin fighter jets. He had previously left no possibility the government is exploring other options or considering pulling out of the agreement with allies like the United States, Norway, Italy and Australia.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/13/pol-fantino-steps-back-f35s.html

[Topaz]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

[huh]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

Shh, turn down the pathetic would ya, so if they make the right decision and back out of this deal you want to roast them for changing their mind, even if you agree with the decision, their is just no limit to how sad and small some of you are.

[PIK]

Shh, turn down the pathetic would ya, so if they make the right decision and back out of this deal you want to roast them for changing their mind, even if you agree with the decision, their is just no limit to how sad and small some of you are.

This is called leadership, when the builder tells the buyer they can't come thru ,the buyer will change course, they do not make decisions on what the TO star says.

[Smallc]

They shouldn't have been so resolute about this in the first place. My guess is that they were told at the meeting that things have changed. We may end up with 80 SHs in our future, or on the outside chance, the same number of Rafales

[madmax]

This is called leadership,

Its called a FlipFlop and its one I am happy about..

[Guest Peeves]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

Provide proof of your ENTIRE claim please.

Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program from its beginning in 1997, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level-three participant, along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making Canada an early participant of the JSF program.[1][2]

On 16 July 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornets for C$16 billion (with all ancillary costs included) with deliveries planned for 2016. The intention to sign a future sole-sourced, untendered contract and the government's refusal to provide detailed costing became one of the major causes of the finding of contempt of Parliament and the subsequent defeat of the Conservative government through a non-confidence vote on 25 March 2011. This directly led to the F-35 purchase becoming an issue in the Canadian 2011 federal election, and resulted in a Conservative majority government.[3][4][5][6][7]

The Canadian government has only stated an intention to purchase the F-35, no contract will be signed until at least 2013. If Canada were to decide not to proceed with the contract there would be no cancellation fees, although Canadian aerospace contractors might lose future F-35-related contracts as a result.[8

[waldo]

They shouldn't have been so resolute about this in the first place. My guess is that they were told at the meeting that things have changed. We may end up with 80 SHs in our future, or on the outside chance, the same number of Rafales

just where are all those MLW guys who so forcefully and adamantly continued to play out the Harper Conservatives 'F-35 broken record' routine... in the face of any and every critical comment offered, or any and every expressed uncertainty from other countries, or any and every program misstep, etc..

[Smallc]

It's still the best plane. It's still probably what we'll be getting. The only thing that I can see harming this deal is the possibility of a massive cost increase, something that Lockheed Martin has said is not a possibility in the normal production run of the aircraft, which will start in 2017. The government has though, put themselves in danger by being as resolute as they were.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I'm not sure that being cautious and objective about such a large purchase is putting themselves in danger, although I would agree it does put them in a position of criticism by parties looking to criticize at any and all opportunity.

But that's just the thing - they weren't nearly cautious enough before. That opens them up to a great deal of criticism.

[dre]

It's still the best plane. It's still probably what we'll be getting. The only thing that I can see harming this deal is the possibility of a massive cost increase, something that Lockheed Martin has said is not a possibility in the normal production run of the aircraft, which will start in 2017. The government has though, put themselves in danger by being as resolute as they were.

Sayings its the "best" is besides the point. Being an early adopter is dangerous in a lot of different ways. Since we know that 95% of what our airforce does is fly routine patrols and stand ready to shoot down rogue civilian planes, we should buy the plane that can adequately do that for the least ammount of money.

If we need a small contingent of JSF fighters as well for conflicts overseas then we can buy those later on once the plane has had all the kinks worked out of it, and we can assess its real performance and operational costs based on real data instead of projections.

[Smallc]

That's not the way people are going to see it.

[punked]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Oh yah that never existed it was just a Conservative lie, one of many.

[Smallc]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Oh yah that never existed it was just a Conservative lie, one of many.

No one ever said there was a contract.

[punked]

No one ever said there was a contract.

Oh I am sorry I meant the Billion dollar contracts that the Conservatives said that Canadian business would lose if we didn't buy these plans. Guess that was a dumb argument to make at the time then?

[fellowtraveller]

Its called a FlipFlop and its one I am happy about..

As noted, if they don't buy the F-35s, they'll buy something else equally costly. Glad you approve.

[dre]

As noted, if they don't buy the F-35s, they'll buy something else equally costly. Glad you approve.

Why would they do that? Is it utterly impossible for the government to live within its means and consider costs?

I do a lot of procurement at work, and I can tell you that you wouldnt get away with doing this in the private sector. You establish a budget, you document the capabilities required, and you consider all the various options that fullfill those capabilities.

Since 95% of what our airforce does is routine patrols, we need some decent range and speed, and some decent air to air capability. Theres probably a dozen platforms that would satisfy these business requirements.

The fanciest, newest, and greatest (and most expensive to buy and maintain) may or may not be the best option. And you may or may not have enough money for the "best option".

[Smallc]

True, but multi-billion dollar commitments by government should be based on more than optics.

Sure, and I didn't say otherwise.

[Smallc]

Oh I am sorry I meant the Billion dollar contracts that the Conservatives said that Canadian business would lose if we didn't buy these plans. Guess that was a dumb argument to make at the time then?

Not at all. By signalling our commitment to move our investment in this program to the next phase, it opens up opportunities for Canadian companies in regards to the entire JSF project.

[Smallc]

Why would they do that?

Because, a ) as far as we know, there's nothing considerably less expensive, b ) other aircraft will need more airframes to do the same job, and c ) the government has committed to a $9B procurement and related budget.

[dre]

Not at all. By signalling our commitment to move our investment in this program to the next phase, it opens up opportunities for Canadian companies in regards to the entire JSF project.

I thought we had already paid a bunch of money, and gotten a bunch of contracts.

Anyhow, once the government is able to provide the kind of cost/benefit/risk analysis that would be expected from a first year accounting student then we can talk about which option makes the most sense, and what we can afford.

[Smallc]

I thought we had already paid a bunch of money, and gotten a bunch of contracts.

With each phase comes more opportunity, from what I understand.

Anyhow, once the government is able to provide the kind of cost/benefit/risk analysis that would be expected from a first year accounting student then we can talk about which option makes the most sense, and what we can afford.

That can't really be done, as Canadian companies have to compete for the contracts. There are potential contracts far in excess of the $9B purchase price, and those numbers were given, but I don't know where to look for them right now.

[dre]

That can't really be done

That HAS to be done. Thats how procurement works... And maybe they did all these things behind the scenes, and arrived at the conclusion that the f35 is the best. In which case they should share all the studies and analysis that went into this decision. Was real due dilligence put into this decision, and if so where are the artifacts that were produced by that process?

Based on what theyve shown us so far, they havent even done the ammount of work that a 9 year old girl would do when sourcing lemonade for her lemonade stand out on the road.

[Smallc]

That HAS to be done.

What I'm saying is that they couldn't know what all the spinoffs from this particular project would be.

[waldo]

In which case they should share all the studies and analysis that went into this decision. Was real due dilligence put into this decision, and if so where are the artifacts that were produced by that process?

as I recall, that decision rationale was 'outsourced' to the U.S.; i.e., there were no formal requirements defined by the Canadian Forces... requirements that should have been, obviously, tailored specifically to Canadian needs. I would like/relish to be corrected on this.