F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[cybercoma]

F-35 Program Head Expresses 'Great Confidence' in Stealth, Sensors

I suppose the Vice Admiral isn’t as informed on the project as the Canadian media…….Or I know, he’s in the pocket of Lockheed.

Good for the Vice Admiral. Was he involved in this?

The situation is even more pressing after media reports last fall showed that the military had been recommending the F-35 as far back as 2006, even though Lt.-Gen. Deschamps said in November that the document was finalized internally in early 2010—meaning that the military bypassed its own procurement process.

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/jsf-02-23-2011

Convenient that the Conservatives got elected and the "military" began recommending this, bypassing their own procurement process.

Edited March 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

You go right ahead and keep supporting this though, Derek. Don't even let me catch you complaining about government spending and taxation with little to no oversight again. When the government spends billions of dollars without following the proper procedures for procurement and you come on here supporting that behaviour, you don't have a leg to stand on complaining about federal spending.

[stopstaaron]

When the government spends billions of dollars without following the proper procedures for procurement and you come on here supporting that behaviour, you don't have a leg to stand on complaining about federal spending.

That seems to be this governments MO, ala Tony Clements slush fund

[Guest Derek L]

Good for the Vice Admiral. Was he involved in this?

And I’ll go back……Who was in Government when we signed onto the program back in ‘02? Also, as I’ve asked numerous times without response, who is better at defining technical requirements? The Military or civilian leadership? And if the military sets such requirements, with one being a certain level of “stealth”, and of all available choices, only one manufacture produces said required stealth aircraft, with whom would you assume we’d do business with?

[cybercoma]

Also, as I’ve asked numerous times without response, who is better at defining technical requirements?

Apparently, you're too busy kissing Harper's ass to even read the responses posted to you. If you can't be bothered, then I'm not going to be bothered humouring you beyond this reply.

Obviously the military, which is why it's so damn baffling as to why the Conservatives went ahead and rigged the process so they could buy the F-35s without any oversight or open-tender process when the F-35s do not come remotely close to meeting the requirements laid out by the military.

if the military sets such requirements, with one being a certain level of “stealth”, and of all available choices, only one manufacture produces said required stealth aircraft, with whom would you assume we’d do business with?

I would assume we would do business with whichever company is selected from the open-tender process (but that didn't happen, did it?) and doesn't fail to meet numerous requirements of our military, including at least one critical requirement. That's really great that it has stealth. Too bad it falls short everywhere else, eh?

[Guest Derek L]

You go right ahead and keep supporting this though, Derek. Don't even let me catch you complaining about government spending and taxation with little to no oversight again. When the government spends billions of dollars without following the proper procedures for procurement and you come on here supporting that behaviour, you don't have a leg to stand on complaining about federal spending.

I’m not under an illusion that there is some mythical “alternative aircraft”, nor do I delude myself into thinking that military procurement is cheap…….

What I will continue to criticize is uniformed opinions on the technical merits of the F-35. For the record, with my time at Boeing and the inherent stock options I received from them, I stand to personally gain if we scraped the Lockheed F-35 and went with the Boeing Super Hornet.

Now if you wish an honest debate on the policy and/or if Canada requires modern fighters (or a military for that mater) I’ll gladly oblige you if you wish to start another thread. I will state, after watching P&P today, I found Ian Chapsticks (I know I butchered the name) line of questioning if Canada really needs a fighter rather refreshing………..Though I disagree with his sentiments, at least he’s honest……

[Guest Derek L]

Apparently, you're too busy kissing Harper's ass to even read the responses posted to you. If you can't be bothered, then I'm not going to be bothered humouring you beyond this reply.

I would assume we would do business with whichever company is selected from the open-tender process (but that didn't happen, did it?) and doesn't fail to meet numerous requirements of our military, including at least one critical requirement. That's really great that it has stealth. Too bad it falls short everywhere else, eh?

And the highlighted requirements that it “doesn’t meet” have already been addressed by me……..The plane is still in development and it has no like contenders……The closest was the Boeing X-32, which was beaten by the X-35 during the initial JSF competition a decade ago.

[waldo]

Again, a strawman.....The aircraft is still in development.

uhhh... haven't I read you, now several times, touting a production model/run... that we're now seeing "production" planes in testing. Ya, ya, it's only production when it's not!

in any case, about that Norwegian post reference you offered some pages back. Notwithstanding yours was an interesting spin to presume to leverage their decision to delay (spread out) purchase, I find this reference to Wikileaks memos, requirements and U.S. pressure to bear, most enlightening particularly given our sorry state of affairs:

Reports says U.S. officials pressured Norwegians on F-35

Aviation Week's Bill Sweetman, who is no fan of the F-35 program, reports on the Ares blog that a Swedish newspaper has found U.S. diplomatic cable traffic in the Wikileaks intelligence trove that show U.S. government officials played a little hardball with the government of Norway to keep them on board as a future F-35 buyer.

We haven't done our own translation yet of the Swedish story, but according to Sweetman's version the U.S. withheld approval for Sweden to use a Raytheon AESA radar in the Gripen jet in order to lessen its capabilities and appeal to the Norwegians, who were being pressured at home to buy from their neighbors.

US officials, including then deputy defense secretary Gordon England, also warned the Norwegian government that "the choice of aircraft will have an impact on the bilateral relationship" between the two countries - but the second-in-command at Norway's defense ministry asked the US government to deny that any political pressure had been applied.

According to documents, Swedish defense minister Sten Tolgfors met with Michael Wood, US ambassador to Sweden, in June 2008 to discuss the possibility of adapting a Raytheon active electronically scanned array (AESA) for Gripen NGs in the Nordic region. At the time, Saab had an agreement with Thales to use that company's AESA technology in the Gripen Demo prototype but had not made a decision about a production configuration.

Wood had previously reviewed the request, on which Sweden expected a decision in September, but on July 9 advised the Defense Department to put the request on hold until Norway had made its decision.

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh... haven't I read you, now several times, touting a production model/run... that we're now seeing "production" planes in testing. Ya, ya, it's only production when it's not!

You’re clearly referencing the LRIP aircraft…… LRIP = Low Rate Initial Production aircraft, which differ from prototype aircraft and production aircraft………Prototypes are flown generally by the manufacture, were as the LRIP’s by the end user (military) in the developmental stage.

in any case, about that Norwegian post reference you offered some pages back. Notwithstanding yours was an interesting spin to presume to leverage their decision to delay (spread out) purchase, I find this reference to Wikileaks memos, requirements and U.S. pressure to bear, most enlightening particularly given our sorry state of affairs:

I fail to see your point with the second part of your post……….In said unsubstantiated, or mentioned, properly translated story, the crux is that the US “refused” a technology transfer to Sweden, with the implication that it would erode the Swede’s ability to further market their Gripen NG to the Norwegians……

Where this junior conspiracy falls apart is quite clear: Saab aerospace, is partially owned by BAE Systems, the other Tier 1 partner with Lockheed in the JSF program, also of note, the Gripen NG is being marketed by a partnership with BAE Systems, and the radar used in the aircraft is produced by Marconi Electronic Systems, a subsidiary of, you guessed it, BAE Systems………

Edited March 27, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

You’re clearly referencing the LRIP aircraft…… LRIP = Low Rate Initial Production aircraft, which differ from prototype aircraft and production aircraft………Prototypes are flown generally by the manufacture, were as the LRIP’s by the end user (military) in the developmental stage.

it's the same point I've made in the past when self-serving use of the label "production" has been used... implying the plane is actually farther along then it really is. In your latter posts case, I've noted your strained emphasis on "still being in development".

I fail to see your point with the second part of your post……….In said unsubstantiated, or mentioned, properly translated story, the crux is that the US “refused” a technology transfer to Sweden, with the implication that it would erode the Swede’s ability to further market their Gripen NG to the Norwegians……

Where this junior conspiracy falls apart is quite clear: Saab aerospace, is partially owned by BAE Systems, the other Tier 1 partner with Lockheed in the JSF program, also of note, the Gripen NG is being marketed by a partnership with BAE Systems, and the radar used in the aircraft is produced by Marconi Electronic Systems, a subsidiary of, you guessed it, BAE Systems………

the 'conspiracy' doesn't fall apart... there is none to fall apart - the wikileaks memo is quite explicit, quite definitive, quite clear:

Postponing a Response on AESA -----------------------------

3. (S) Our original report on AESA releaseability reviewed the Swedish case (ref A). We now supplement our recommendations to call for a postponement, taking into account the potential impact on the Norway fighter jet competition. Our recommendation for postponement is based on the following three points: -- The Swedish government has requested the granting of U.S. export licenses for Raytheon's Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar to be used on SAAB JAS Gripen 39 fighters for the Nordic Region (refs A and B ), asserting that this would enhance Nordic region air coverage and interoperability. The Gripen is competing with the Lockheed Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for a sale to Norway of 48 fighter aircraft. Norway is expected to take the decision on the Gripen vs the JSF by early December. The Gripen is also competing with the JSF and Boeing's F-18 for a later sale to Denmark of an additional 48 fighters. Swedish officials and SAAB want AESA radar in time to make the Gripen more competitive. Swedish officials tell us they anticipate a decision from Washington on AESA releaseability by September 2008. -- Given this potential impact of AESA releaseability on the Norway competition, and possibly the Denmark competition, we suggest postponing the decision on AESA releaseability for the Gripen until after Norway's decision in December. We futher recommend informing the Swedes of this delay in advance. This recommendation supplements ref A assessment of releaseability. -- If this course is chosen, we should also explore doing something else for Sweden to demonstrate our bilateral engagement and support for Nordic cooperation, while informing them of the delay. We recommend exploring offers to support aspects of the Sweden's proposals for enhanced Nordic cooperation.

[mentalfloss]

So the F-35 still doesn't meet "mandatory minimum requirements".. hm..

[Guest Derek L]

it's the same point I've made in the past when self-serving use of the label "production" has been used... implying the plane is actually farther along then it really is. In your latter posts case, I've noted your strained emphasis on "still being in development".

I’ve never stated final production aircraft are currently in service.

the 'conspiracy' doesn't fall apart... there is none to fall apart - the wikileaks memo is quite explicit, quite definitive, quite clear:

So you allege, via Wikileaks, that the US Government is interfering with the efforts of the JSF’s competitors? I ask, why the subterfuge? If the Gripen was going to reduce the chances of selling the JSF to Norway, why wouldn’t BAE simply not offer it in the competition?

All that aside, the Gripen NG is offered with an AESA radar, developed by BAE systems and Finmeccanica, again, two companies involved with the JSF program.

http://www.selexgalileo.com/SelexGalileo/EN/Business/Products/Radar/index.sdo

The beauty of conspiracy theories, there’s no need for fact nor reason.

[Wild Bill]

So the F-35 still doesn't meet "mandatory minimum requirements".. hm..

I'm starting to get confused by the line being taken by the critics here.

First off, the claim was made that the choice was made first and the tender specs were then made to ensure that only the F-35 bid could win.

Somehow, this is Harper's fault even though it was a Liberal government in office at the time.

Now, apparently the F-35 doesn't meet the tender requirements at all! How could this be, if the original tender was written to unfairly ensure that the F-35 won?

Of course, this is still all Harper's fault.

It's a bit cold out this morning. I guess that's Harper's fault as well.

Meanwhile, let's suppose the critics succeed in getting the F-35 deal cancelled. What will our pilots fly instead? Even if its true that the F-35 does not meet some requirements, what alternate choice has specifications that match more closely?

The answer seems to be none! We are left with old, non-stealth aircraft. Would it not be cheaper to to paint bulls-eyes on them, along with a radar transponder to alert any enemy? Better yet, if they are attacked we could have a self-distruct installed, just to save time.

As I said, I'm getting confused by the inconsistencies in the criticism being directed in this thread. Still, some things seem plain. To some in this thread, Harper is responsible for anything they want to pin on him, even things committed before he came into office.

What's more, these people seem so fanatically dedicated to attacking Harper that they truly don't give a damn what planes Canadian Air Force pilots have to fly!

Couldn't we accept that our F-18s are too old and focus on having something THAT WORKS for our pilots to fly? If not, could those who take that stand simply admit that they don't want us to have anything, instead of using useless aircraft designs as a diversion?

In an age of stealth warfare, would you like your own son and daughter to fly in combat a non-stealth plane?

When blind partisanship overwhelms even basic loyalty to your country, then I say screw you and the horses you rode in on! May you have to commute daily to work in a SeaKing!

[waldo]

I’ve never stated final production aircraft are currently in service.

my comment was 'across the board'... again, there has been a liberal use of 'production' in the past - used to imply the plane is farther along than it actually is.

So you allege, via Wikileaks, that the US Government is interfering with the efforts of the JSF’s competitors? I ask, why the subterfuge? If the Gripen was going to reduce the chances of selling the JSF to Norway, why wouldn’t BAE simply not offer it in the competition?

All that aside, the Gripen NG is offered with an AESA radar, developed by BAE systems and Finmeccanica, again, two companies involved with the JSF program.

The beauty of conspiracy theories, there’s no need for fact nor reason.

again, where's the conspiracy? That wikileak doc is actual U.S. diplomatic correspondence... whatever you state the Gripen is offered with today has no bearing on it's capabilities at the time of the initial Norwegian decision... and the U.S. pressure applied. Ya think?

[mentalfloss]

I'm starting to get confused by the line being taken by the critics here.

First off, the claim was made that the choice was made first and the tender specs were then made to ensure that only the F-35 bid could win.

Somehow, this is Harper's fault even though it was a Liberal government in office at the time.

Whether or not the Liberals started this mess, the CPC have had plenty of time to end it.

Anyway, people are getting tired of these sorts of fallacious, pointing-the-finger excuses by governing parties. It's this sort of schoolyard mentality that has put Fantino and McKay in the hot seat, and now they're backpeddling.

Edited March 27, 2012 by mentalfloss

[waldo]

Whether or not the Liberals started this mess, the CPC have had plenty of time to end it.

another WB gem that somehow misses the point on the Liberal party's stated policy position on advocating for an open bid - how convenient.

before the two threads got merged/mashed, there was insightful comment concerning the 2000 date references to Alan Williams, (retired) Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, Canadian Department of National Defense... where it's very clear there was no (Liberal) emphasis on actual purchase; rather, the emphasis was on joining JSF to gain insight into the F-35 as a possible replacement... as one of the presumed mix in an open bid process undertaking... an open bid process the "accountable/transparent" Harper Conservatives completely ignored and had no use for.

[Wild Bill]

... where it's very clear there was no (Liberal) emphasis on actual purchase; rather, the emphasis was on joining JSF to gain insight into the F-35 as a possible replacement... as one of the presumed mix in an open bid process undertaking...

"As one of the presumed mix.."? Didn't we already flog this to death, Waldo?

Where's the mix? Where are all these alternatives? Haven't seen any that have stealth. Haven't seen any at all in the F-35's class. Wouldn't any country flying F=35s have an overwhelming advantage in any combat situation?

Can you offer a valid alternative? One that's not a flying bulls-eye in the modern world?

If not, then I say again, our choices are simple. F-35s or nothing at all.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"As one of the presumed mix.."? Didn't we already flog this to death, Waldo?

Where's the mix? Where are all these alternatives? Haven't seen any that have stealth. Haven't seen any at all in the F-35's class. Wouldn't any country flying F=35s have an overwhelming advantage in any combat situation?

Can you offer a valid alternative? One that's not a flying bulls-eye in the modern world?

If not, then I say again, our choices are simple. F-35s or nothing at all.

The only alternatives I am aware of are no longer airworthy; that is the doomed X-32 Boeing bird, and the Northrop YF-23 bird that lost out in the competitions in the first or should I say last place.

Russia has a bird at about the same production stage as the F35, their Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA and it is costed out at less than 60 million an aircraft. China has the Chengdu J-20 running at about 110 million an aircraft. The F35 is simply the bird that lived.

[Wild Bill]

The only alternatives I am aware of are no longer airworthy; that is the doomed X-32 Boeing bird, and the Northrop YF-23 bird that lost out in the competitions in the first or should I say last place.

Russia has a bird at about the same production stage as the F35, their Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA and it is costed out at less than 60 million an aircraft. China has the Chengdu J-20 running at about 110 million an aircraft. The F35 is simply the bird that lived.

Well, since we can't take a Russian or Chinese plane without getting kicked out of NATO, I guess this confirms my premise that we can buy F-35s or nothing at all.

Unless Macker can tell me how we can create an entire warplane industry, complete with all the engineers with all the required knowledge and build a plane of our own, within the same budget and deliver before 2017 or so.

I think the engineering skills would be the hardest. Few Canadian students take such studies, because there are so few jobs available. Those that do of necessity leave for the States. Once settled down there it's not likely they would pack up and move their families back to Canada.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, since we can't take a Russian or Chinese plane without getting kicked out of NATO, I guess this confirms my premise that we can buy F-35s or nothing at all.

Unless Macker can tell me how we can create an entire warplane industry, complete with all the engineers with all the required knowledge and build a plane of our own, within the same budget and deliver before 2017 or so.

I think the engineering skills would be the hardest. Few Canadian students take such studies, because there are so few jobs available. Those that do of necessity leave for the States. Once settled down there it's not likely they would pack up and move their families back to Canada.

Talk to the clever folks at Bombardier. Lots of engineer types floating around over there, all on the tax payers dime I might add. That company owes the nation a deal of money. Since we will never get it back anyhow, then why not just toss them their last bag of dollar bills until they produce what would amount to a sixth generation fighter. The Americans got two aircraft for less than 700 million. They picked one and we bought it.

Figure a way to build an aircraft a month, no more than that until final production model rolls off the lone. At that point production can be doubled or tripled depending on capacity per location. Spread the program cost out to three or four regions or production facilities. Design and maintain a single central final assembly facility. If every dime is spent in country we will effectively tax back the costs of the program. No reason to ship tax dollars out of the country if we can avoid it. WE can and should avoid it.

[waldo]

"As one of the presumed mix.."? Didn't we already flog this to death, Waldo?

Where's the mix? Where are all these alternatives? Haven't seen any that have stealth. Haven't seen any at all in the F-35's class. Wouldn't any country flying F=35s have an overwhelming advantage in any combat situation?

Can you offer a valid alternative? One that's not a flying bulls-eye in the modern world?

If not, then I say again, our choices are simple. F-35s or nothing at all.

you're quite emboldened for a plane that's a decade late and $600 Billion over budget... notwithstanding the reams of identified problems that will continue to affect development/delivery/price... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems aren't being offered up'... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems may yet arise'... notwithstanding stated requirements (as setup as they were) aren't even being met. Valid alternative? I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

[Wild Bill]

you're quite emboldened for a plane that's a decade late and $600 Billion over budget... notwithstanding the reams of identified problems that will continue to affect development/delivery/price... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems aren't being offered up'... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems may yet arise'... notwithstanding stated requirements (as setup as they were) aren't even being met. Valid alternative? I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

You said this before but I just don't buy it. I cant' see how we can participate without any modern combat aircraft in any peacekeeping role. Certainly, defending our own country off the coasts and in the far North would be impossible.

[Jack Weber]

You said this before but I just don't buy it. I cant' see how we can participate without any modern combat aircraft in any peacekeeping role. Certainly, defending our own country off the coasts and in the far North would be impossible.

Considering the lip service,and only lip service,the Harper Government pays to "defending the North"..I don't think they really care...

Standing Up For Canada is nothing more than phony election sloganeering...

[waldo]

Considering the lip service,and only lip service,the Harper Government pays to "defending the North"..I don't think they really care...

Standing Up For Canada is nothing more than phony election sloganeering...

and that played directly within the earlier referenced wikileak docs - the way you've characterized the Harper Conservatives is exactly how the U.S. reps portrayed Harper; i.e., as an election keyed opportunist; one with no real intentions to forcefully press an Arctic military presence/capability. That dovetails with Harper's own statements that have downplayed any urgency/requirement relative to Russian 'aspirations'.

[cybercoma]

you're quite emboldened for a plane that's a decade late and $600 Billion over budget... notwithstanding the reams of identified problems that will continue to affect development/delivery/price... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems aren't being offered up'... notwithstanding the 'who knows what problems may yet arise'... notwithstanding stated requirements (as setup as they were) aren't even being met. Valid alternative? I've already stated we don't need this albatross or anything like it; again, target Search & Rescue needs, beef up the Coast Guard, deliver icebreakers for scientific pursuit (and sovereignty posturing) and position Canadian Forces to properly deliver to the best traditions within Canada's storied peace-keeping role, etc.

Airbus