Forum: Program and politics

Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Internal political fights in Oz revolve around personal attributes of politicians rather than 'agreed' defence matters usually. IF there is disagreement it is just a 'punch and judy show' and soon forgotten. US politicians seem to me to be just knuckleheads - willing to take that country to all kinds of fiscal hell just because they can. So different strokes for different folks I guess.

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Maybe you're right; but if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean.

spazsinbad wrote:

Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Internal political fights in Oz revolve around personal attributes of politicians rather than 'agreed' defence matters usually. IF there is disagreement it is just a 'punch and judy show' and soon forgotten. US politicians seem to me to be just knuckleheads - willing to take that country to all kinds of fiscal hell just because they can. So different strokes for different folks I guess.

I don't really understand Canadian Politics, but after Kevin Rudd's (former Australian PM) performance... I became rapidly disillusioned with Australian politics, especially with regard to the military and procurement. At least in the US, everyone knows its dollars to lobbyists.. idiots on Wall Street can practically bribe congressman, make obscene profits from it.. and its all technically legal.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Maybe you're right; but if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean.

I believe you are both right. unlike the US where weapons tend to get bad press but are not really assigned to a "political side" if you will, Canadian projects are "owned" by a political party. Being pissy at this party now means the F-35 must be bad because they lied and the F-35 is them.

But of course that lie has been exposed and Canadians now have an excellent look at cost and now as adults they can maybe research and compare value to cost--- Just kidding!! they hate it and it costs too much. every other option out there would be better/cheaper than the F-35 no matter what it is but Canadians can't separate the politicos from the aircraft.

Its really odd too because I'm guessing Canadians have been lied to about things like their National Health Care Service but I don't see them Rioting about how other systems should be adopted instead. I think the F-35 was the first time a Canadian politician ever lied. ever. Naturally the Canadians are shocked and taken aback. They have to continue to act scandalized in the mean time. Innocence lost.

'1st503rdsgt' said: "...if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean." News outlet comments of any country are just drivel. Read positive comments about the F-35B here instead. Very Happy

spazsinbad wrote:

Read positive comments about the F-35B here instead. Very Happy

Eh?

Here 'ON this forum' it should have read - don't bother wasting your time reading drivel reader comments on newspaper websites. Clear? Very Happy

Perhaps you enjoy reading newspaper website reader comments. If so then - have at it. I won't.

Last edited by geogen on Dec 12, 2012 - 10:34 PM; edited 1 time in total

hb_pencil wrote:

Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?

As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.

To more seamlessly recapitalize the force structure in a less risky and more reliable manner.

A stopgap could be in the form of a Lease eg, alternative buy/split-buy outright, or SLEP and upgrade.

Defence planners can have all the available information in the world in front of them, but if planners lack the ability and willingness to critically assess said information and rather take a pre-conceived approach in assuming pre-conceived success according to advertised expectations etc, then the threat of moral hazard becomes more institutionalized and will more likely lead to facing unfavorable consequences down the road due to miscalculations.

Thus, it's probably justified to maintain a mix of options and alternatives in policy-making when fulfilling requirements.

geogen wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?

As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.

By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.

It is politics.

PM Harper is deeply detested by the Canadian Press who have very bad cases of Harper Derangement Syndrome. The government got lazy and instead of doing what Norway did - sell the idea to voters, they tried to slick & dazzle the acquisition and left a wide open flank for the Opposition and PM hating media to go all crazy and use the F-35 as the issue.

The F-35 is the only spending program in Canada that costs out over a 42 year period. The Canadians routinely use sole sourced contracts instead competitive tender to acquire military equipment, but somehow the analysis done by the RCAF to support the aircraft they wanted was "biased' and just an excuse to buy the "best for the boys".

Funny how the screaming, finger pointing press is saying nothing about the 42 year costs of Canada C17's, Leo 2 tanks and the new Herc J fleet - all the recent big sole sourced contracts.

Whatever happened to that thread mocking Canadian journalists. It was so entertaining but needs updating over the F-35 media con job.

hb_pencil wrote:

geogen wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?

As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.

By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.

Took the words right out of mouth.

Maybe some Gripens and Rafales as well? You know just As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases with the hornets? Never can be too safe.

hb_pencil wrote:

By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.

The problem is refurbishing the CF-18s at an acceptable fleet level isn't cheap either. I would easily cost $1.2bn+ for 80 F/A-18s to refurbish them for operational use past 2020 in significant numbers.

The RAAF F-111s used practically every airframe and major part reasonably available in the boneyard to keep them flying. Even that wasn't enough to avoid a rapid increase in operational costs at the end. A major SLEP could have reversed that trend, but with Goon & Kopp around, that was doomed.

The USN F-14s experienced the same issue in the 2004-2006 timeframe. The costs were increasing significantly at the end. A SLEP could have delayed that, but the F/A-18E/Fs were replacing them at significantly less operational cost.

High Cost Leads Canada to Review Plans to Buy F-35 Fighter Jets By IAN AUSTEN and CHRISTOPHER DREW Dec 12, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

"Canada said Wednesday that it would reconsider plans to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets after an independent audit found that the sophisticated stealth planes would cost substantially more than the government had promised.

The decision was an unusual step back by Stephen Harper, the prime minister, who has been a strident defender of the purchase despite widespread public criticism of the price. Two cabinet ministers said an independent panel would review a variety of options, including a version of Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter as well as sticking with the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin.

“We have hit the reset button and are taking the time to do a complete assessment of all available aircraft,” Rona Ambrose, the public works minister, told reporters in Ottawa....

...Ms. Ambrose and Mr. MacKay repeatedly used the word “reset” on Wednesday and avoided questions about what that step would mean in evaluating alternatives. The ministers and officials, however, did make it clear that no decision had been made to start a formal competition among aircraft manufacturers and acknowledged that it remained possible that Canada would stick with the F-35.

The review, Mr. MacKay said, would “ensure that a balance is maintained between the military needs and taxpayer interests.”...

...Possible alternatives to the F-35 include an updated version of Boeing’s F/A-18 Hornet, called the Super Hornet, and several European models. The Royal Canadian Air Force currently flies CF-18s, a version of the Hornet. While some of Canada’s jets date back about 30 years, Mr. MacKay said Wednesday that the fleet could be kept operational for at least another decade....

...Separately on Wednesday, the government also reduced its estimate of business that Canadian companies were likely to win from F-35 contracts to $9.8 billion from $12 billion."

AS USUAL best to read entire article at source. Thanks.

F-35 Reports Released by Canadian Govt ... by Amy Butler Dec 12, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 613e0f081b

"
The Canadian government has officially released the parameters for moving forward with an F-18 replacement and shelving its earlier evaluation that led to the selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“Last April, we set out a Seven-Point Plan to hit the reset button on the process to replace the CF-18 aircraft,” the Honorable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, said in a press release. “With the release of the Terms of Reference that will guide the evaluation of alternative fighter aircraft, we are demonstrating that we are serious about looking at all available options to replace the CF-18’s.”

Then follows LINKS to various documents so best go to the URL above to see these links.

Is any study known what it will cost Canada, dropping the F35 project and ordering another jet, as well as a economical industrial study?
Both have been done in the Netherlands. Dropping the F35 and ordering another jet would be more expensive then ordering and staying in the F35 project (Dutch Audit Office).

How many this really would have cost the Dutch is unknown, because of expected claims (MOU’s with other countries as for example the US, Italy and Norway.

Circumstances differ by country and obviously can not be compared, but still the invested Canadian money can be seen as lost ((some $700 million?)
Suppose it will cost Canada, as well the Dutch calculated concerning a the Dutch situation, a lot of money.

The economical factor:
Quote: Separately on Wednesday, the government also reduced its estimate of business that Canadian companies were likely to win from F-35 contracts to $9.8 billion from $12 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/busin ... ?_r=1&

Doubt it Canada will have economical profits like this, in case ordering another jet.
Concernig the Dutch; in case an other jet, no more then some pototoes for the Dutch industry compared with the F35.
As well as concernig high end and knowledege industry there is nothing to win in case another jet.

Forum: Program and politics

Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister