What's new

Canadian Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

for truth

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the Harper Conservatives have decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said. This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before members of the cabinet, the source said.

The decision was to go before the cabinet planning and priorities committee Friday morning but the outcome is not in doubt, the source said.

PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall took to Twitter Thursday evening to deny a decision has been made. “The government will fulfill its seven-point plan,” he tweeted.

The government is “awaiting reports that will be tabled as part of the seven-point plan,” MacDougall said later in an email. “Government will need this information to make an informed decision.”

The cabinet meeting Friday morning was to have established a communications plan for unveiling the change of direction to Canadians, Postmedia’s source said.

The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

The CF-18s currently flown by the RCAF are at the tail end of their life cycle and are not expected to be operable much beyond 2020 at the outside.

The fighter procurement process has been the responsibility of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose since last spring, following an audit by Auditor General Michael Ferguson. It is understood that veteran senior bureaucrat Tom Ring, who handled the government’s much-praised shipbuilding contract process in the fall of 2011, is now steering the reframed fighter replacement process, from within Public Works.

Last spring, Ferguson ignited a political firestorm when he reported that the top-line cost cited by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign – $9-billion for 65 planes, or $15-billion including maintenance and other life-cycle costs – was $10-billion below the Defence department’s internal estimate.

Even the internal figure of $25.1-billion was suspect, critics said, because it assumed a 20-year life cycle. The longevity of the Lockheed-Martin-built aircraft, according to the Pentagon, is 36 years.

KPMG’s audit, due out next week, has confirmed the contention, long made by critics such as former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams, that the F-35 program’s real cost would be much higher than any previously stated government estimate, sources say.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30 billion over a 30-year life cycle.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signalling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House of Commons, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”

Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said: the F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked. Lawson’s answer: “No.”

The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.

Also in the mix, former Industry Minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.

Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the CF-18 fleet.

source:Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

Will there be others making the same call?
 
. .
If more Orders are Cancelled Price will go further upwards North and That will lead to further cancellations . A extremely vicious cycle in which F-35 is stuck in . Even U.S. Government is Not Happy about the Project . Currently the Aircraft estimated cost is Twice what it was initially.
 
. .
Now that`ll make someone cry a river...:cry:

But then what threat is Canada facing to make these kind of huge deals ?

If Australia will consider it not worth also, then US will face the music...:fie:
 
.
Now that`ll make someone cry a river...:cry:

But then what threat is Canada facing to make these kind of huge deals ?

If Australia will consider it not worth also, then US will face the music...:fie:

It, has been created to be too big to fail. US tax payers would have to foot the bill, again!
 
.
. .
the word 'reviewing 'itself is disturbing, considering the billions Americans have spent on developing this aircraft.

well, anyway the F-35 has garnered lot of negative criticism, this should not have been the case for a 5th gen aircraft which promises to do a lot.

the Australians had said that F-35 might become obsolete as early as 2020.

Criticism is good and by Australians you mean that idiot Kopp?
 
. . .
Criticism is good and by Australians you mean that idiot Kopp?

The F-35: Not just costly but obsolete


it wasn't a statement by 'kopp', I'm not able to recollect the source,but I'm certain it was a statement made by a person related to Australian defense.

By the way, why all Americans label 'kopp' as some kind of biased ,idiot, fool etc.
may be you are unhappy with assessments of his, but, rather than giving valid counter arguments, people label him as a biased,fool etc.
 
.
This post is SUPER DUPER MISLEADING............

to start, Canada NEVER EVEN SIGNED A PURCHASE AGREEMENT of F-35 to begin with. mean Canadian cannot cancel an order they do not make. Canadian are developemental partner but is the only one country that will consider buying the product after 2013 (2013 is yet to come) and at any time, if Canada were not to go ahead with the full purchase, there will not even have a cancellation fee. As there are no official agreement on Canadian buying the bird in the first place. The F-35 Program are build on CANADA NOT BUYING THE JET........

Quote form Canadian Boardcasting Company article in 2011

UPDATE: How much for that F-35 jet in the window? - Reality Check - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

Voters will remember that when the Jean Chretien Liberals came to power in 1993, their election promise to cancel the EH-101 Maritime helicopter purchase cost taxpayers about $500 million in penalties. (Plus, we are still waiting for the promised replacements.)

This time is different. The contract to purchase is not signed and is not expected to be signed until 2013. So there is no cancellation fee.

Cancelling the project would mean the loss of the approximately $165 million that the federal government has invested to allow Canadian companies to bid on the project.

Plus, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has argued that cancellation would mean Canada would lose up to $1 billion in royalties, economic benefits and R&D opportunities.

Presumably at least some of that would be regained if the alternative is to buy and participate in the development of a less costly alternative.

F-35 is already in production, so the price is FIXED from now on, country who had express doubt before were already been informed the final price of F-35. They had already decided to follow up on the F-35 procurement. Australia even bought 24 F-18E/F Super hornet to specifically bridge the gap to accomodate the delay. Would a country bought another 24 planes for the delay will pull out so close to the mark??

The only one country who would have a major effect to the F-35 program is the Untied State, United State forked out 98% of the money of the project. F-35 will only be suspended if US Pulled out, and seeing that US start fielding the F-35, i don't think they are going to pull out soon. Not even all industrial partner pulled out, US Alone will go on with the program. Sorry to burst the bubble guys, but F-35 is here to stay, that's it.
 
.
The F-35: Not just costly but obsolete


it wasn't a statement by 'kopp', I'm not able to recollect the source,but I'm certain it was a statement made by a person related to Australian defense.

By the way, why all Americans label 'kopp' as some kind of biased ,idiot, fool etc.
may be you are unhappy with assessments of his, but, rather than giving valid counter arguments, people label him as a biased,fool etc.


Kopp's opinion is irrelevant he is just an enthusiast with no military experience but plenty of time and money to spread his propaganda and ignorance via the internet. Lets say you are interested in the BMW X5 or Range Rover Sport whose opinion will you seek and value. Someone who has never driven a car and spent only 30 minutes in the back seat of a car or someone with years of experience driving the type of vehicle you are interested in?
 
.
Kopp's opinion is irrelevant he is just an enthusiast with no military experience but plenty of time and money to spread his propaganda and ignorance via the internet. Lets say you are interested in the BMW X5 or Range Rover Sport whose opinion will you seek and value. Someone who has never driven a car and spent only 30 minutes in the back seat of a car or someone with years of experience driving the type of vehicle you are interested in?

irrelevant? may be, but, it is hard to consider him as a 'ignorant' when he explains all his assessments with detailed literature, formulas and calculations.

As i said, i haven't seen anyone thoroughly debunking his assessment and conclusions point by point with detailed analysis, rather, all i came across was a bunch of naive people who started to label kopp as idiot, biased etc.

by your logic of the car,well, i will also go with the one who has years of experience in driving, but, in this case, where are those professionals? and how many of these experienced professionals have clearly debunked kopps assessment?.

neither kopp nor those who label kopp as a fool have any kind of experience in flying an aircraft, nor were involved in actual design of the aircraft, in such a case, both are unreliable source of information, but, kopp makes an attempt to explain his assessment through known standard fundamental physics and formulas, while others completely stay out of it and call him a 'fool'.

If you go through his recent article:
A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype

he has made a highly detailed analysis of the Russian T-50 fighter, and this is the only scientific assessment that is out there in the public.No one has come forward to debunk this nor has made a attempt to analyse the T-50 at such a revealing level.

When both of them have no experience in driving a car, i will go with the one who tries to explain the details with fundamentals and sound reasoning and not with one who never justifies his opinion.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom