Argus Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 It was day one investment, and continued investment over the years. So you are saying that Lockheed Martin should benefit from all that early money and not return anything. How do you think that will work in industry if you ask for investment money, and then when you start producing product you don't return to the investors? Canada has already failed to make a payment to continue as part of the consortium. Any loss will be on the Liberals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. The contracts are what count - period. And the contract that is the JSF program is being followed to term.....Canada leaves the program, the contracts leave Canada. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. The contracts are what count - period. Neither am I, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last week, and as expected, Canada is about to screw itself royally on yet another military procurement fiasco. Well done ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Canada has already failed to make a payment to continue as part of the consortium. Any loss will be on the Liberals. That seems to be a strong signal, despite words to the contrary - there will be no F-35. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 And the contract that is the JSF program is being followed to term.....Canada leaves the program, the contracts leave Canada. I think the idea that they'll pull contracts that Canadian companies won because of monies that the government has contribute up to now speaks to an unfairness that will make Canadians more likely to support buying something else. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Neither am I, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last week, and as expected, Canada is about to screw itself royally on yet another military procurement fiasco. Well done ! Actually we seem to be pretty good at sole source deals. Quote
Argus Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 That seems to be a strong signal, despite words to the contrary - there will be no F-35. At a cost of billions in work we won't get. we'll settle for an old, second rate aircraft. All to prevent a little embarrassment to the Liberals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 I think the idea that they'll pull contracts that Canadian companies won because of monies that the government has contribute up to now speaks to an unfairness that will make Canadians more likely to support buying something else. I doubt it. I think they'll get the idea that if we don't make the payment/contribution we don't belong to the consortium any more. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) At a cost of billions in work we won't get. we'll settle for an old, second rate aircraft. All to prevent a little embarrassment to the Liberals. An "old" aircraft that the USN is still buying and updating, and that will be operated for 20 - 30 more years.Besides, whatever we spend at Boeing will be recycled through the economy. Edited June 11, 2016 by Smallc Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 I think the idea that they'll pull contracts that Canadian companies won because of monies that the government has contribute up to now speaks to an unfairness that will make Canadians more likely to support buying something else. Why is it unfair ? JSF partners are expected to invest in the program....and buy aircraft. What's so special about Canada ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 An "old" aircraft that the USN is still buying and updating, and that will be operated for 20 - 30 more years. Besides, whatever we spend at Boeing will be recycled through the economy. So now we're back to the good 'ole United States Navy....some things never change. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Canada has already failed to make a payment to continue as part of the consortium. Any loss will be on the Liberals. Actually Canada paid last year to remain in the program up until September 30, 2016. I don't know what the May 1st date is all about, again I suggest we refer to the actual contracts for the terms of remaining in the program. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Why is it unfair ? JSF partners are expected to invest in the program....and buy aircraft. What's so special about Canada ? If Canada were to continue to invest in the program, I'd expect it to continue to get work. If Canadian companies have won contracts based on previous investments, I'd expect them to keep that for the stated duration. It seems LM is pretty butt hurt. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 If Canada were to continue to invest in the program, I'd expect it to continue to get work. If Canadian companies have won contracts based on previous investments, I'd expect them to keep that for the stated duration. It seems LM is pretty butt hurt. No...LM will honour existing contracts stemming from the Liberal decision to join the JSF program. But any new contracts will be subject to logical exclusions because of non-participation. No pay...no play. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Hey, I already told you guys to just buy one F-35 just to keep the game going.....trying to help you out here ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 According to the Narional Post, the Conservative interim measure changes that let them buy the Asterix makes this deal (if there is to be a deal) perfectly legal. No, it doesn't......as any manufacturer can challenge the premise of the timeline of a contract awarded to Boeing......for example Irving or Seaspan couldn't have challenged (which they both looked into) the awarding of the contract to Davie, as the GoC had a demonstrated need (no AORs) and Davie had a ship in hand and was far more along then either of the other two (Irving had a conversion concept, Davie had the ship and concept) The head of our air force, under oath, has stated there is still usable time left on our current Hornets, further still with a center barrel upgrade that the Liberals aren't moving on (reprofiled funds?).....furthermore, Boeing would have to be able to demonstrate that they could deliver an interim aircraft faster then any other manufacturer............ In the case of a Lockheed, Saab, and Eurofighter/Airbus, all said companies have access to surplus (but lightly used) aircraft they could offer to upgrade and offer as interim types, far faster (and likely cheaper) then Boeing producing new builds.......then there would be the argument as to how long the other builders could offer new build interm types..... BAE (also a partner in the F-35) is currently producing the Eurofighter at the same reduced rate as Boeing is with the Super Hornet, well also having access (to offer for sale) to the remaining tranche 1 mothballed RAF Typhoons........Lockheed has also slowed the F-16 production line to a similar rate as Boeing, yet unlike Boeing, has a desert full of f-16s they could zero hour and upgrade, also able to export.......Saab has access to surplus Swedish Gripens etc......... The point, no, the Liberals have no leg to stand on in ordering a sole sourced contract for a "interim" type......when there are plenty of other options.......The Liberals citing the Super Hornet by name during the election would make this a slam-dunk legal and trade challenge give away......I can't believe how stupid they are.........they could have simply rigged the competition to preclude single engine type FFS or continued with the program dues and ordered a token handful of F-35s Quote
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Canada has already failed to make a payment to continue as part of the consortium. Any loss will be on the Liberals. Actually Canada paid last year to remain in the program up until September 30, 2016. I don't know what the May 1st date is all about, again I suggest we refer to the actual contracts for the terms of remaining in the program. -------- I think it is also important that we look at what the Liberals actually said during the past election on the F-35: We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber. We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs. While the first statement seems clear, what if the 'open and transparent competition' comes up with the F-35 as the answer? Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 No...LM will honour existing contracts stemming from the Liberal decision to join the JSF program. But any new contracts will be subject to logical exclusions because of non-participation. No pay...no play. That's not what they said today. If they had said that, it would be more understandable. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 I think the idea that they'll pull contracts that Canadian companies won because of monies that the government has contribute up to now speaks to an unfairness that will make Canadians more likely to support buying something else. Right........because the EH-101 did wonders for the Liberals in the 90s Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 That's not what they said today. If they had said that, it would be more understandable. That is what they said, directly and indirectly supported by actual contract provisions and exclusions. Canada can't have it both ways. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) No, it doesn't......as any manufacturer can challenge the premise of the timeline of a contract awarded to Boeing......for example Irving or Seaspan couldn't have challenged (which they both looked into) the awarding of the contract to Davie, as the GoC had a demonstrated need (no AORs) and Davie had a ship in hand and was far more along then either of the other two (Irving had a conversion concept, Davie had the ship and concept)You'd be a poor lawyer.The head of our air force, under oath, has stated there is still usable time left on our current Hornets, further still with a center barrel upgrade that the Liberals aren't moving on (reprofiled funds?).....furthermore, Boeing would have to be able to demonstrate that they could deliver an interim aircraft faster then any other manufacturer............A. The reprofiled funds are available when the upgrades would be going onB. Thr government didn't check if Irving or Seaspan could deliver as fast or faster than Davie. You're wrong. In the case of a Lockheed, Saab, and Eurofighter/Airbus, all said companies have access to surplus (but lightly used) aircraft they could offer to upgrade and offer as interim types, far faster (and likely cheaper) then Boeing producing new builds.......then there would be the argument as to how long the other builders could offer new build interm types.....And again - so says you. We're obviously not looking for used crap.The point, no, the Liberals have no leg to stand on in ordering a sole sourced contract for a "interim" type......when there are plenty of other options.......The Liberals citing the Super Hornet by name during the election would make this a slam-dunk legal and trade challenge give away......I can't believe how stupid they are.........they could have simply rigged the competition to preclude single engine type FFS or continued with the program dues and ordered a token handful of F-35s Again - so says you. The government has better lawyers - hopefully better than those in the Harper government anyway (Oshkosh). Edited June 11, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Right........because the EH-101 did wonders for the Liberals in the 90s That doesn't even make sense as Ana analogous situation. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 That is what they said, directly and indirectly supported by actual contract provisions and exclusions. Canada can't have it both ways. That doesn't seem like what they said. You make tail fins - if you don't buy, you won't. Quote
?Impact Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Hey, I already told you guys to just buy one F-35 just to keep the game going.....trying to help you out here ! I don't think one would make sense, but I agree that a limited initial purchase (min 6, more likely a dozen) has several advantages on all sides. The question is when. With the serious outstanding problems, especially the software, when does it make sense to make a purchase commitment? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Posted June 11, 2016 Why don't the Liberals want to own this "file"...it is their bastard child: Canada began its investment in the F-35 program in 1997 under the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, when the Department of National Defense committed $10M to join the "Concept Demonstration" phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. In 2002 Canada invested another $150M to participate in the System Development and Demonstration phase which was scheduled for more than 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement#History Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.