Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

How to spend $21-billion

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, December 13, 2010 11:32am - 104 Comments

David Pugliese’s three-part series on the proposed purchase of 65 F-35s—see here, here and here—is an altogether epic tale of confusion, misdirection and the unexplained.

In the 1980s, when Canada’s Air Force was looking for a new fighter jet — eventually picking the CF-18 — it gathered the competing aircraft at Cold Lake, Alberta, for rigorous flight tests. One military participant recalls tens of thousands of pages of aerospace evaluation data and flight test details. Among those taking part was then military pilot Laurie Hawn, now the Conservative point man on the JSF file.

But Canada decided on the JSF without testing it against competing planes. Boeing and French aircraft manufacturer Dassault would later confirm DND never asked nor received high-level performance data from them. The developmental nature of the JSF, in itself, violated DND’s criteria for a replacement aircraft. In 2006, department officials stated that any CF-18 replacement would have to be an aircraft in operation with an allied force, according to records obtained by the Citizen.

Bookmark and Share
  • Cats

    Who cares ? Tories are way up in all the polls and poised for a majority win anytime they want !!

    Winning Cats!

    • Emily

      That light at the end of the tunnel? It's a train coming towards you.

      Derailing imminent.

      Prepare for roadkill cat.

      • Cats

        Quick question ?

        Will you be over flowing with anger and bitterness if the CPC wins a majority ?

        Just not sure how the coalition will take it. They've spent so many years convincing themselves that Harper is the devil.

        Sulfer Cats!

        • Emily

          No, but I'll be amazed at the two moons in the sky, not to mention the virgin births.

          • Cats

            Sure. And the US has a low corporate tax rate too eh ?

            And no polls show Harper winning a majority ? And the democrats will win in november ?

            Emils doesn't have a good track record on these things … CATS!

          • Emily

            Thing is, I've been right in all of them….and you've simply been as confused as you always are.

          • Cats

            US has the second highest corporate tax rate in november !

            Democrats faced an epic historic record breaking blow out in november!

            Are you just trying to be silly beyond compare ??

            Cats wants to know.

        • brooster2

          "Just not sure how the coalition will take it. They've spent so many years convincing themselves that Harper is the devil."

          Let me correct this statement for you, in the interests of accuracy:

          Just not sure how the Cons will take it. They've spent so many years convincing themselves that there is a "coalition".

          That's OK, no need to thank me.

          • Cats

            If Harper doesn't win a majority or very strong minority then YES OB|OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE A COALITION!

            Lol are you joking ?

            You think Ignatieff will just quit and go back to Harvard ?? Layton ?
            These guys are nearing the end of their time in politics.

            Anyone who doesn't think the next election is COALITION OR HARPER MAJORITY is being willfully blind.

            Like totally disingenuous. Like i'm planning a coalition but i'm going to pretend i'm not because people don't like it!!

            LYING ELECTIONS. HIDDEN COALITIONS. Cats sees you !!

          • brooster2

            There is no coalition and no deal to create a coalition but, as long as Harper keeps harping (boy, he's aptly named) about it, he deflects attention from his own hidden right-wing agenda.

          • Cats

            There's a piece of paper with Ignatieff's signature on it ACTUALLY.

            So yeah there is a coalition and there is a deal that under pins it.

            Coalition Cats!

          • Cats

            Oh lol some troll is going to post the document Harper signed a few years back.

            The one that mentioned nothing about a coalition and just said to the GG that she shouldn't grant a snap election.

            Lol I laugh so hard when people equate that to a coalition. Aaron Wherry anyone ??

            The BIG LIE Cats.

          • brooster2

            It's archival material…signed before he was leader and quickly repudiated shortly after he assumed the leadership. You're wallowing in the past.

          • Cats

            Um no.

            Actually he waited until the budget came out to decide whether to go for a coalition or not.

            He CONSIDERED IT and the time wasn't right because in his arrogance he figured he could win by himself without the NDP.

            Now that he knows he can't win by himself he'll go back to supporting the coalition.

            Coalition Cats.

          • brooster2

            Depending on the distribution of seats, post-election, coalition arrangements could well be explored by various parties. It would even have been an option for the CPC, had Harper not foreclosed on the possibility with his wedge politics.

            Having said that, there won't be any secret coalition pacts before an election, as Harper seems to suggest. That's just utter nonsense.

            And it's highly unlikely, given the furor over Dion's coalition proposal, that any of the other parties would even involve the Bloc in consultations.

            Finally, Harper is putting it out there that there are only two possible outcomes to an election – a CPC majority or some vague, unspecified coalition. That's absurd and deliberately misleading. It also fails to give the Canadian electorate credit for having enough collective intelligence to see it for what it is – an election ruse.

            So, man up (or cat up) and stop spewing his propaganda. Or are you on the payroll?

    • gottabesaid

      Glad to see short-term political gain, and not long-term implications, are at the forefront of Conservative thinking.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I'm not so sure that short-term political gain is at the forefront of Conservative thinking. I'd argue that evidence suggests that it represents the TOTALITY of Conservative thinking.

    • Hedges

      …poised for a majority win anytime they want !!

      Well, what's the freakin' holdup, then. If a majority was such a sure thing, then let's get this election over with so that most of us can go back to sleep for four years.

  • gottabesaid

    Forget about the sole-source contract for a second and give those stories a read. Is anybody else nervous about the fact that no on can get a straight answer about the cost of these things from people in presumably authoritative positions? Wild contradictions. Estimates varying by billions of dollars. Are we spending $16B? $21B? More? Who knows.

    The government must do a better job of justifying this purchase, and must do a better job telling Canadians how much this is going to cost. Get your story straight, guys.

    • YYZ

      I've started to think that when reporting numbers media should always use a per person or per household number (I'm suprised opposition parties haven't done this before). $20 billion sounds like only a bit more than $18 billion for example and doesn't really sound that big to begin with.

      But if they started saying things like $1,000 per household for things like Jets, or $100/person on G20 security or whatever it might make people feel a little more concerned about these things.

      • gottabesaid

        Although, if they gave every taxpayer a crack at flying in one of them, the price tag wouldn't seem so outrageous.

        On a more serious note… it is over 20 years, too. Taking that into account, the figure might not appear quite as galling.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Although, if they gave every taxpayer a crack at flying in one of them, the price tag wouldn't seem so outrageous.

          Well, I think that would actually make the price skyrocket. We're only getting enough planes for three active squadrons. Take enough planes out of the mix for each Canadian to get a ride in one and it will take FOREVER to get our pilots trained. If, on the other hand, everyone gets to PILOT an F-35, then it's going to cost us billions and billions of dollars to replace all the planes we're going to lose!

      • Mike T.

        It's an interesting idea, but would it take into account government revenue that doesn't come from individuals?

  • Leo

    "In 2006, department officials stated that any CF-18 replacement would have to be an aircraft in operation with an allied force, according to records obtained by the Citizen."

    That is why it is called JSF- eight countries are buying – the idea that each will save money per jet because of mass manufacture. Boeing did participate in the 5-year competition which began in 1996 and lost to Lockheed Martin. They are always sore losers. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ai…

    The biggest risk financially comes from the fact some of the other countries have cut back on their original number of jets ordered.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      So, the JSF is an "aircraft in operation with an allied force" is it?

      Pray tell, which allied air force is currently operating the JSF?

    • guest

      Those scaling back the orders like Britain will be using other fighters for their main aircraft. This is a terrible waste.

  • http://juliuscsurgoinfo.blogspot.com/ Julius Csurgo

    We made our first mistake with the Avro Arrow…

    • Emily

      Yes, and we never seem to have gotten over that either. To this day we aren't a technologically-minded country.

      • YYC@114

        The Arrow was so far ahead of every A/C then, today it would still give them a run for there money. By the way there are still plans for the Arrow out there, A number of us have seen them.

  • danby

    The reason for varied figures on the cost to maintain the JSF is because no one knows what the maintenance bill will be since the aircraft has not flown long enough to provide government with an accurate assessment of that, say aerospace industry officials.

    "This is still a test aircraft, so it's unclear at this point what type of expense we will face," said Alan Williams, the former procurement chief at DND who authorized the department's involvement in research and development on the JSF
    ————————————–

    This would indicate that the maintenance costs as put forth by Peter MacKay will be about as accurate as Jim Flaherty's economic forecasts.

    • Leo

      Good point, but would the same not be true of any jet of the future? Westjet saved $$millions by having only one model of plane for its fleet, so the concept remains sound. So many interests involved "epic tale of confusion, misdirection and the unexplained" is apt. My concern is the U.S. having the last word. http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/monj…

      • pdpd

        Yes, the concept is sound, but the question is whether or not it really applies here. Westjet made a killing by going after Boeing 737s, which are the best selling jet aircraft in history, as well as 40+ years old as a class. So they knew exactly what it could do and exactly how it would perform over decades of use. Moreover, the 737 can be very easily modified to fit a number of different tasks. It's the Honda Civic of jet planes.

        The JSF is kind of like this, but not tried and tested, and with almost no economies of scale, and with a very hefty bill for needed "canadian" modifications.

        I do agree that any purchase would entail a large amount of risk, but the real worry is that even the best case scenario with the JSF is pretty worrisome (ie. huge bill for a plane with short range, one engine, and limited air to air capability).

        • Leo

          My beef is it always becomes political. Canada has a poor record in making big military purchases, i.e. Sea King replacement ordered then cancelled, those four 'used' UK submarines (where the heck are they anyway?), etc. Interesting read: "The Politics of Procurement"
          ' His account of the bungled attempts to procure the Sea King’s replacement reveals that partisan politics, rather than a clear desire to increase the military’s capabilities, has driven Canada’s military procurement process. '

          • pdpd

            That's a fair point. It must be really hard to do procurement for a smallish forces that wants wide capabilities. I do sympathize with the difficulty of their task.

      • danby

        I expect the Finance Minister to be reasonably close in his forecasts. Wayward forecasting serves no one.
        While it is difficult to forecast for the jet of the future, the cost/maintenance of the jets will play a significant role in Canada's economic future. The AG has already raised a red flag over the Cyclone helicopter purchase supported by DND supplied data:

        "After lengthy delays and significant cost increases, National Defence still has not completely estimated what it will cost to operate these helicopters," Fraser said. "Nor has it put in place all the elements, such as personnel, needed to maintain them over the long term. This is cause for concern."

        Can these concerns be extended to theF-35 purchase?

        The article attached to your link is very interesting. If it is true, then one of the biggest issues with this purchase has been the government's inability to engineer a credible sales job. This in itself is cause for concern.

        • Leo

          Thought the article made quite a few good points. Looks like we are still heading in the current direction with the announcement of $3 million investment for Pratt & Whitney Canada today.

          Just a layperson here as my only first-hand experience with the aviation industry was working for an OEM years ago that made specialty bolts for aircraft. Each had a serial number, logo, etc. as conterfeiting was a huge problem – think they are using chip technology today. Every bolt had a guaranteed number of hours of service time and was to be replaced once it reached that number. Trying to do an estimate for cost of operations is no easy task.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Every bolt had a guaranteed number of hours of service time and was to be replaced once it reached that number. Trying to do an estimate for cost of operations is no easy task.

            If you know exactly how long a bolt is going to last and you MUST replace it after that many hours by policy, doesn't that make figuring operational costs comparatively easy? At the very least much easier than if you had no idea when you were going to need to replace that bolt.

          • Leo

            Think this goes back to your original post that the F-35 has not been in operation long enough. My guess would be maintaining a fighter jet vs a civilian aircraft (Canadian Airlines was our big client) is much more complex. Same flight route, altitude, flying time, etc. vs ????. A starting point could be using the information from a similar jet and take it from there.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Good point. Technically, the F-35 has not been in operation AT ALL, let alone "long enough". It's still technically a test aircraft. This is perhaps why, as noted in the Citizen stories above, maintenance estimates for the life of the fleet range from 5 billion to12 billion dollars.

            I don't think it's too much to ask that we try to lessen that wiggle room to something under $7 billion before we sign the contract.

  • ex-canuck

    It is most gratifying to learn that we have such highly qualified aeronautical experts right here in the Maclean's readership. Has the Ministry of Procurement been told? Or does aeronautical expert simply mean knee-jerk anti-Harperite?

    • gottabesaid

      Did you read any of the stories? There are wildly differing estimates from within the government itself — between the politicians and the DND. So, it's not like it's anti-Harper folks blowing smoke… these are people who are already on-side with the purchase, but none of them can agree on how much it's going to cost. Doesn't that make you a wee bit nervous?

      • Mike R

        As has been noted, the only current variable that can affect the cost of the F-35 in a large way is the maintenance cost. That is always going to be a factor that is subject to speculation. If you buy a car today it is clear what you will pay the dealer. If you had to estimate the total operating and repair costs over the next 20 years, how accurately do you think you could do that? The air force faces the same challenge, with the additional complication that this is a new aircraft with new technology, we don't know what the operating environments will be that it has to serve in over the next 20 years, and we don't know the intensity of operations that will be called for. At best, the maintenance costs will have to be an educated guess. As they always have been with any such purchase.

        • Emily

          My car dealer told me precisely how much the maintenance costs would be every year over the life of the car.

          • Mike R

            Sure he did.

          • Emily

            Yup, car dealers can do that ya know. We've had cars for over a century now.

          • YYZ

            Mine are included in my lease.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Thank God car dealers are a reliable source of information then, eh?

          • Emily

            Depends on the car you buy. Mine's Korean.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            So, are you arguing that dealers who sell Korean cars are LESS likely to try to screw you over, or MORE likely?

          • Emily

            I'm not arguing about cars at all, this is about aircraft maintenance. It's predictable, just like car repairs.

            However Koreans build better cars, and apparently know their business better too.

        • gottabesaid

          Fair enough… though it is a little funny that, as opposition to the purchase gained steam, the cost estimates miraculously started dropping, from $12B to $7B to $5B (a drop that correlates directly to the amount of political involvement).

          The government also doesn't seem to have a handle on how much of the JSF business will come our way:

          "A Joint Strike Fighter report done by the Pentagon in 2003 estimated Canadian firms would receive $3.9 billion in work. DND briefing notes from 2007 put the estimate at $5 billion. Both figures were based on Canada's purchase of 80 aircraft, as well as the U.S. and allied acquisitions. In 2008, without explanation, the Tories raised the estimate to $8 billion. By the summer of 2010 – with the F-35 purchase under fire – Industry Canada was promising $12 billion worth of work. When the Citizen asked Industry Canada specialists to explain how they reached that number, the department did not respond."

          Again, the more the politicians got involved, the more work that was going to come Canada's way… based on nothing, apparently, but wishful thinking. Sounds like we're getting spun.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      You know, the fact that there is a much more detailed discussion of this procurement here in the Macleans comment boards than anything you can find from the actual government of Canada is actually a BAD thing.

    • JRobinson

      It does not take an aeronautical expert to see that spending billions of dollars (with apparently no cap) does not make good economic sense for Canada. However, being a knee-jerk anti-Harperite is beginning to make good economic sense.

  • tobyornotoby

    The government wants to talk about the benefit of joining with other countries to develop the jet, but no one seems to remark that the parties are essentially accepting the risks, inlcuding cost over runs, associated with developing the jets.

    That's a funny kind of capitalism in which you remove the risks for the producer, along with it the main incentive for them to be prompt and cost efficient, and then still allow them to derive a profit from the sale, as well as any benefits of future sales. Shouldn't we at least be getting a piece of the future sales?

    • Leo

      The fact that seven other countries are involved, that traditionally do spend much more than Canada on their military, is about the only positive. The benefits will be in how much of the jet is manufactured by Canadian aerospace firms.

      • Mike R

        Plus the benefit if having an aircraft in which Canadian pilots are less likely to die in combat than if the government buys a cheaper or less capable plane. Mind you, that appears to be a minor consideration for the opposition parties (and most of the posters on this thread).

        • Richard_S_Argent

          You don't actually believe what you just wrote do you?

          It's not like anyone is suggesting we should just pick up a few Tupolev Tu-28s from some cash-strapped former Soviet Republic or anything.

          I'm pretty sure whatever plane is currently being produced will be capable and won't spontaneously combust.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          I could be wrong, but I'm reasonably certain that no more Canadian pilots would die in combat because we went with the Eurofighter or the SuperHornet over the F-35.

          Short of full-on WWIII with the Russians and Chinese, any of the cheaper alternatives we could conceivably choose would certainly COMPLETELY DOMINATE any air force we're remotely likely to come up against.

          I'm also still not convinced that the F-35's engine is just so damned reliable that we're never going to lose any to single engine failure over the arctic.

          • Mike R

            You are, of course, wrong. While having the Typhoon (is anyone still calling it the "Eurofighter"?) or Superhornet would be acceptable today – and a step up from the CF-18, we will be using the F-35 or its alternate for 35 to 40 years. Yes, buying a less-capable aircraft that is at the end of its development life is going to put our pilots at risk – or make it impossible for them to be used. If that is the goal, then folow the advice of people like Emily and simply don't have an air force. Otherwise it is irresponsible to suggest it is acceptable to equip our pilots with aircraft that are "good enough". Unless you can guarantee they will never have to fly against the fifth-generation aircraft being planned by the Russians, Chinese and Indians.

          • pdpd

            But you are constructing a series of straw men, and LKO is trying to operate in the real world, where everything has trade-offs. Canadian aircraft haven't been shot down since the Second World War, and we've flown some sh*t planes during that time during periods of international superpower crisis.

            Why? Well, because we are part of a defense envelope. So our planes will probably only go down because of training accidents (and we want a single engine fighter?). But even if they did go to war, it would be as part of an American defense package that would make us just one part of a whole. A Silent Eagle, or Superhornet, or SU PAK would probably do just fine, as the F-35 is itself designed to only operate within just one of these packages. After all, the Americans are still buying Superhornets, so presumably they think it just fine.

            The F35 isn't designed to, on its own, take on large numbers of 5th generation aircraft. To put it mildly, if your scare-scenario is the thought-experiment, then this is the wrong plane for us to buy. If it was, it would have more than 2 internally housed missiles, and would have a longer range, which an infamous RAND simulation exposed as being two huge limitations in any air conflict.

            So we would, by your account, be spending 4 or 5 billion dollars to perhaps save a couple of lives during the apocalypse. Meanwhile, LKO is irresponsible for suggesting that we might find better, more urgent, uses for our scarce dollars elsewhere. Right.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I actually can't guarantee we won't have to face the KLINGONS in battle in the next 50 years either. Perhaps by your logic we should scrap the plans to buy the F-35s and redeploy those funds to building something with a warp drive. Your fifth generation fighters aren't going to be worth squat once the first photon torpedo gets launched from orbit.

            I actually think buying the F-35s is a good idea, but this whole line of argument for them vis a vis the Russians and the Chinese is asinine in my view. If we ever find ourselves in an all out war fighting against the fifth generation fighters of China or Russia, our having decided in the early 2000s to go with the Typhoon instead of the Lightening II will be entirely meaningless. We'd be better off not getting any planes at all and investing in a strategic nuclear program if you want to save the lives of air force personnel in your hypothetical doomsday scenario.

            In this scenario "good enough" isn't merely "good" it's "good enough to COMPLETELY DOMINATE any enemy that we could conceivably be forced to fight, except for the Russians and the Chinese".

          • Mike R

            Or someone who has bought their aircraft or air defence systems from the Chinese and/or Russians?

            You are right – if we bought something other than the F-35 it wouldn't be the first time we equipped the air force with less-than-first-rate equipment – the Voodoo and CF-5 come to mind. And we haven't lost any wars as a consequence of those decisions. But is that a responsible way to plan for long-range defence purchases? It depends on whether you think that defence purchases are primarily a regional development program, combined with a PR gesture towards our allies. Or whether they should be designed to actually plan for the worst-case scenarion (well, third-worst-case, after your Klingon invasions and thermonuclear war).
            There may be alternatives to the F-35. I doubt they would be substantially cheaper over the long run – and they would not be as capable for all the intended or possible roles for which they will or may be required. A responsible defence policy would make purchases that provide the maximum utility over the longest likely lifespan of the investment.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            There may be alternatives to the F-35. I doubt they would be substantially cheaper over the long run – and they would not be as capable for all the intended or possible roles for which they will or may be required. A responsible defence policy would make purchases that provide the maximum utility over the longest likely lifespan of the investment.

            A responsible defense policy would examine possible alternatives and clear up your doubts with an open, transparent and competitive bid process BEFORE announcing our intent to purchase.

            I also think you should send a memo to some of our allies, who are buying up plenty of Super Hornets and Silent Eagles and Typhoons (including, in some cases, abandoning previously planned F-35 purchases to do so). I don't see why Super Hornets, for example, are just fine for the future plans of the U.S. Navy, the British Navy and the Australian Air Force, but they're less than first rate equipment when viewed by certain Canadian eyes. Maybe if there'd been some sort of competitive process (like the South Koreans are going to have) we'd know why the F-35 is the only way to go, but we didn't do that did we?

            One thing I guess we're guaranteed of is that if the JSF is really so superior, and the JSF is all we have to offer, then presumably we'll get more than our fair share of most dangerous missions, doubtless supported by Super Hornets and Typhoons from our NATO partners, as we'll never have the option of being the support if all we have in our arsenal to contribute is the tip of the spear. If all you have is fifth generation fighters with stealth then won't you tend to get tasked mostly with the types of missions that require fifth generation fighters with stealth?

          • Mike R

            The Australians have bought the SuperHornet as an interim aircraft, pending the arrival of the F-35, not as an alternate to that airplane. The UK has not, as far as I am aware, made any indication it will buy the SuperHornet. their future air combat capacity will be based on a combination of F-35s and Typhoons. If we could afford two different airframes for two different roles that might be a logical mix to consider. Since we can, or will, only afford one type, it makes sense to buy the newer and more multi-role of the aircraft available.

            When we bought the CF-18 I don't think anyone thought we would be flying them against Iraq or Serbia. The point is that we don't know what they will be called on to do. Hopefully nothing more than peacefully intercepting and waving at Russian bombers doing their usual training runs. That would be fine. But hoping for the best is scarcely a reasonable basis on which to make defence purchase decisions – as traditional as the practice may be in this country.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            There have been reports that the UK has plans to scrap their carrier based F-35s in favour of Super Hornets, but you're right, that hasn't been announced yet, it's mostly rumour.

            I do agree that hoping for the best is not good planning, but neither is planning for the nearly impossible.

            To my mind, it's certainly possible that 40 years from now our F-35s will be flying missions surrounded by Typhoons and Silent Eagles and Super Hornets and we'll all be saying "remind me again why we bought 3 squadrons of these instead of 4 squadrons of those?"

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            When we bought the CF-18 I don't think anyone thought we would be flying them against Iraq or Serbia.

            Maybe not, but I think even back then no one was silly enough to argue that we needed a plane capable of flying against Russia or China.

          • Mike R

            Well, actually, the CF-18 was bought to fly against Russia, wasn't it? Just as the CF-104 was. It would seem unlikely Russian will again become a menace to the world on its own – given its reduced size and demographic challenges – but its tendencies towards autocracy haven't yet convinced everyone that it isn't at least a potential threat. And as China becomes the world's significant economic power it is also likely to have ambitions to become a military and naval power – as its plans for a blue-water navy with air capacity illustrates. As a Pacific ocean nation we are affected by that, as are our allies.

            A war with China, or its proxies is not likely. Nor is it impossible.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Well, A) buying planes to fly against the Soviet Union in 1983 is a little different than buying planes to fly against Russia in 2010, and B) our CF-18s never had a hope in Hell of stopping the Russians either (nor the Chinese, frankly).

            A war with intergalactic aliens, or their proxies in not likely. Nor is it impossible.

            I just don't understand why we're spending $21 billion on fighter jets to keep the Russians at bay and just completely ignoring the need to invest in photon torpedo technology to protect the sovereignty of Canada from possible all out war with aliens. If we need to invest in F-35s to defend against a highly unlikely hypothetical attack that we couldn't stop with them anyway, why don't we need to invest in photon torpedoes to protect us against a different hypothetical attack that we also couldn't stop anyway?

            I'm sorry, but the argument vis a vis the hypothetical need to battle the Russians or the Chinese in the future is an argument to buy 1600 F-35s, not 65. You're the one who brought up the Russians' $650 billion re-equipping plans for their military. If that's really a serious part of the justification for our F-35s then I think you should just put that $21 billion battle in the win column right now and start figuring out where the Harper government's going to find another $630 billion for us to keep up with the Russians.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Or someone who has bought their aircraft or air defence systems from the Chinese and/or Russians?

            So, we need the F-35 not just because of the almost impossible hypothetical of an invasion by the Russians or the Chinese, but because of the even less likely possibility of invasion from Iran, or North Korea? Come on.

            If, on the other hand, you're talking about us invading one of them, we STILL wouldn't need F-35s, unless you're seriously suggesting that sometime in the next 50 years or so Canada is going to need to unilaterally attack Iran, or Pakistan, or North Korea.

            Frankly, I thought my Klingon example was perhaps too hyperbolic to use as a rhetorical device, but you're getting closer and closer to it with your "real world" examples.

          • guest

            come on, you're not this stupid.

            if north korea attacks south korea we'll probably be at war. it almost happened last week. likewise if iran attacks israel, or attacks iraq. likewise if any nation state sponsors another major terrorist attack on north american soil.

            there are a lot of unstable players on the world stage whom we might have to invade – not by ourselves but alongside nato or the un. in either case we'll need 5th gen to dovetail with our allies and to give our pilots the best odds against whatever russian, chinese, or european planes the enemy is using.

            don't let your liberal sympathies clog your thinking. there's already too much of that.

          • pdpd

            Please. This, in itself, shows the problems of thinking through this procurement, because people can't even come up with a plausible worst-case scenario to scare us with.

            If NK were to attack SK, the air war would be over in days. We couldn't even stage to the area in time. Now, that's not to say that NK isn't scary, as a week is enough to level Soeul, but it's not a plausible scenario to demand that Canada buy marginally better planes.

            If Iran were to attack Israel, the air war would be over in hours. We wouldn't even have yet made a decision to help or not. Nobody in that scenario would even have wondered what the Canadians were going to do.

            And if we were to be a part of an international mission to invade a small country, well, then this isn't a life or death scenario, is it? And in that scenario, we could totally fit our 4.5 gen planes in with our allies, who are using similar planes in many cases.

            You can accuse us of letting "liberal sympathies clog (our) thinking," but it's pretty telling that nobody here can create a plausible scare-scenario, showing us that a 5th generation fighter is a need to have, not a want-to-have.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            You didn't like my Klingon invasion scenario either, did you?

        • pdpd

          I agree with you. Myself, I feel like demanding that every Canadian police officer or firefigher be made into a sort of cyborg and given dual machine guns/waterhoses. Anything else would be unpatriotic and would make us all complicit in the senseless deaths of proud Canadians.

          Meanwhile, I think we'd all agree that the funds for the stealth fighters and robocops should come out of health and education transfers. It's morally imperative than hundreds should die from marginally worse health care so that we might possibly save the life of a proud serviceperson. If it were to go the other way, well I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

    • Jan

      This is sounding just the Fast Ferries in B.C.

  • Olivier

    I'm getting very tired about the F-35 debate.

    Yes it's a lot of money, but jet fighters are expensive. Yes they've gone against almost every guide line DND has in place for this situations, but this is the conservatives we're talking about, they can blame anything on the Liberals or the "Coalition of Evil" and shrug it off.

    All I know is Canada is getting a good plane for a decent price. There might be more appropriate aircrafts we could have gotten (faster ones come to mind) and maybe we could have driven the price down a bit (I doubt it would be much), this is true.

    But can we please stop acting like spoiled children about this? It's still a good deal.

    • Emily

      Fighterplanes are obsolete. It's a waste of money, no matter what they cost.

      Money we don't have, for that matter

      • Leo

        Like it not, Canada is part of NATO. If only your KIA could fly, lol!!

        • Emily

          I don't have a KIA….and we don't have to be part of Nato either. Lots of countries aren't.

          If all it's going to be used for is to drag us into stupid unwinnable wars, we'd be better off without it.

  • BGLong

    There are trolls – yes, trolls – everywhere. But most famously in Scandinavia ….

    http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7479-norways-…

  • http://unambig.com/ MarkOttawa

    A broader view here:

    "F-35: UK making out like bandits? MND MacKay “blowing smoke out his tailpipe”/Dutch Update" http://unambig.com/f-35-uk-making-out-like-bandit…

    See also the "F-35" tag.

    Mark
    Ottawa

    • Jan

      And the U.S. has rescinded the free planes to Israel.

    • Inkless

      Mark's been following this story closely and well for many months. Go read.

  • kcm

    'What MacKay didn't say was that the Canadian and Russian militaries were on relatively good terms. In fact, they'd planned the training exercise together. Just weeks after MacKay voiced his concerns about the Russian Flight, Canada, Russia and the U.S. launched that exercise. Dubbed Vigilant Eagle, it involved military personnel operating from command centres in Russia and the U.S. used fighter jets to follow and intercept a "hijacked" plane…

    …. On Aug. 24, the Russians sent two aircraft on a patrol into the region. Again, CF-18s were sent to shadow the planes, which didn't enter Canadian airspace…

    The joint Canada-U.S. North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad) pointed out that the Russians had not done anything improper, an unusual announcement that some considered a rebuke of MacKay and Harper's public relations campaign'

    Pugliese does as effective job as i've seen in painting the Harper crowd as manipulative, bald faced liars.

    • Mike R

      Yes, we are on "relatively" good terms today. Compared with thirty years ago when we bought the CF-18. Can you guarantee we will remain on such good terms for the next forty years? Since Mr. Putin has just announced a $650 billion dollar re-equipment of the Russian armed forces over the next 10 years he seems to think there are some contingencies for which he has to plan as well.

      • Leo

        Was about to make a similar comment. Even though MacKay's "scary" Russian planes insults the average Joe's intelligence and the Vigilant Eagle exercise was very cool, things can change. RIA NOVOSTI had a good article on the topic.
        http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20100930/160787281.ht…

        • kcm

          Still no reason to lie and distort reality like this. I don't discount we should be on our guard vis vis Putin; let the govt make its case honestly – you could argue the procurement process and the surrounding crontroversy is now the story, when all that was needed to sell the public on the quite legit need to be wary of a an unknown future. Five years in and these cons are still rank amateurs.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I do think it's worth pointing out though that 65 F-35s isn't really going to help us much on that front regardless. Forget the $650 billion re-equipping plan for the Russians, we couldn't begin to stop what they have TODAY with 65 F-35s.

        Whatever nefarious contingency plan the Russians are up to, our 65 F-35s won't change it one bit. Hell, we could buy ONE HUNDRED and sixty-five F-35s and we wouldn't have much of an effect on Russian plans, even if the Russian plans were to "seize and occupy Canada".

        Relating the F-35 purchase to our ability to fend off the Russians (who could outnumber our F-35s 15:1 while leaving more than half their planes at home) is just asinine.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          shhh…my god man, why are you letting such trifling matters get in the way of a good ol' fashioned scare-up!

      • Emily

        Ah yes, the chicken-and-egg routine otherwise known as an arms race.

        Well, you can spend the rest of your life waiting for the USSR to rise again, but the rest of the world has moved on…including Russia.

        But if they wanted to take Canada out, the missiles would be here before ANY type of plane got off the ground.

    • jonah

      Here's the part I don't get.

      The Russian Tu-95 Bear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95), a propeller driven aircraft, first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. It is expected to remain in Russian service until 2040.

      The F-18 first flew in 1978. The CF-18 version entered Canadian service in 1982.

      If defending the north from the menace of Russain Bears (60 year old tech)is the main rationale for purchase, why isn't the Hornet, or the improved Super Hornet, good enough? Why is the media accepting the bogus bear scare and not asking the pointed questions?

      • kcm

        I'm not sure the media is ; as for the public, it seems to like being scared – some of it anyway.

      • Jan

        It's kind of like arguing we need atomic subs to ward off the refugee boats.

      • Mike R

        And will that still be the risk forty years from now? Or is Mr. Putin expecting to get something new for his $650 billion? The argument that we don't face an imminent invasion, therefore we don't need to buy new planes for the air force would make sense, if an aif force was something you could pick up over a long week-end when you decided you needed one. Otherwise, the money has to be spent – or we could simply let the Americans patrol our skies for us, and defend our allies when we ask them to – if you are willing to pay the price for that.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          we could simply let the Americans patrol our skies for us

          In the context of the Russians, they ALREADY ARE. Canadian fighters don't keep Russian bombers away from Canada, American ICBMs do. Whether Canada buys 65 F-35s or 165 F-35s, or 65 slingshots, or 65 Defiant class starships will have no effect on Mr. Putin's plans for us (OK, I take that last one back, if we can get something with photon torpedoes which is capable of faster than light travel it'll probably make the Russians think twice).

          I wish people would stop following MacKay's lead and bringing the Russians (or Chinese) into this discussion. Newsflash people, the Canadian air force can't stop the Russian air force today. We won't be able to stop the Russian air force tomorrow. If we buy twice as many F-35s as the government intends to, none of that will change. If we buy no F-35s none of that will change. The F-35 decision has no effect whatsoever on our ability to defend sovereign Canadian territory from hypothetical Russian incursion.

          Not to mention that none of any of that has anything to do with the PROCESS used to make this decision, which was, as far as I can tell, no process whatsoever. If the South Koreans (a nation infinitely more likely to have to fight China in the future than we are!) are holding a competition to determine if the F-35 makes the most sense for their air force or not, why didn't we again? 'Cause Lockheed Martin seems to indicate that should the South Koreans choose the Lightening II, they are going to get their F-35s at the same time as us, for the same price, even though they're holding a competition between the Silent Eagle, the Typhoon and the JSF.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    You know, it's funny, all of these comments and only one even makes mention of the fact that it turns out that a $9 billion purchase with $7 billion in maintenance costs could very well actually be a $9 billion purchase with $12 billion in maintenance costs.

    Is there an area of government spending outside of defence where the government's estimates could be as much as $5 billion off with so little comment? Is "give or take $5 billion" the type of caveat we should accept on a costing estimate?

    I was told this was a $16 billion plan, and it turns out it might be a $21 billion plan. I'm just going to close my eyes for a bit and take a nap, but if the cost of the F-35 program hits $25 billion, somebody wake me up.

  • gar

    This aircraft will turn out to be the best after all the bugs are worked out.No different than any other aircraft.The French and the Brits thought the concord was the best and actually thought it could be converted it to military use.We all know what happened with it.The bill for this will be paid over many years but will offer a lot of work to our industry.any other country would keep the work home. this is all Liberal and NDP politics .The Chamberlain parties of Canada until the sh..t hits the fan.Oh yes has anyone forgotten the submarines purchased by the Liberals ?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      So, the British and the French once thought they had a great idea for a military aircraft… and they were WRONG.

      A previous Canadian government made a too hasty defense procurement decision without thoroughly and transparently weighing all of their options in a competitive process, and they were WRONG.

      I've got to say, the Brits being wrong about the Concord and the Liberals being wrong about the subs are not great arguments in favour of the Tories' choice to announce the purchase of what they think is going to be a great idea for a military aircraft (once it's out of its testing phase) two years before we needed to sign a contract, and without holding a transparent and competitive bidding process. The Tories seem to have just combined the British/French love of the unknown with the Liberal penchant for hasty military procurements that make it LOOK like you're supporting the military without you having to actually carefully weigh the decision in public. Nice job!

  • guest

    think of it this way: campaigns like the persian gulf war, serbia/kosovo, etc will continue to happen. in 30 years they will be happening. it's true that other countries won't need our help, but it's also true that we, as responsible members of both the un and nato, will have an obligation to help out. we can either shirk our promises and leave our allies to do the dirty work or we can help out.

    in those cases they will not be using 4.5 gen aircraft, and it's entirely likely that the enemy won't either, since 5th gen will be available over the next few decades from several sources including russia, china, and possibly india. therefore we do one of four things:

    A – duck our international obligations to your allies, which is both dishonorable and incredibly harmful in the long term,
    B – try to meet our obligations with fighters that went out of date 20 years earlier. in general this will amount to A since our fighters will at that point be entirely incompatible, but in cases where it's possible to at least take part in the missions and the enemy has 5th gen our pilots will just die as a gesture of our good will. great solution.
    C – buy a 4.5 gen fighter now and a 5th gen fighter in 20 years. this is not in the defence budget or planning. canada buys one fighter only, and runs it until end of life since we are too small to run different types concurrently.
    D – buy a 5th gen fighter now. surprise, this is what the conservatives are doing.

    i know it's difficult to concede that the idiot conservatives might actually be right, and even more difficult to concede that the noble genius liberals might actually be using national defense policy for political leverage, but sometimes you just have to accept these bizarre ideas.

    • Jan

      The simple and obvious solution to end the politicking, is to have the competition, as originally planned. If the F 35 is the best plane, it will win and we might even secure some jobs and a better price in the process. Why are the Conservatives opposed to this?

  • http://www.linkedin.com/companies/merger-law-associates-ltd. Julius C.

    We should go for the upgraded version while were at it…

From Macleans