Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[Localizer]

Great .. not this BS again .. just like the Liberals canceling the helicopter deal, they'll buy the cheapest piece of crap on the market and cost us double the original price in the end. Its funny how history keeps repeating itself ....


Ignatieff: Liberal government would cancel jet deal

Ignatieff had been non-committal about what his party would do to replace the aging planes despite repeatedly hammering the Conservative government's multibillion-dollar deal.

But he said the auditor general's report Tuesday that found delays and cost overruns connected to the purchase of military helicopters served as a wake-up call for his party and for all Canadians.

"This is a story of waste, cost-overruns, failure of ministerial responsibility and accountability. What was Peter MacKay doing in these years when these costs skyrocketed and no control was exerted over the process?" Ignatieff said to reporters Wednesday after a caucus meeting.

"We've decided . . . that we would cancel the accord reached by the Conservative government on the F-35s. We would reform the acquisition to take into account what the auditor general is saying about the waste of money and bad management."

Last summer, the federal government finalized a deal to purchase 65 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets from U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The estimated cost of the deal runs as high as $16 billion.

For weeks, the opposition has been hammering the Tories in the House of Commons, calling on the government to cancel the deal and accept bids from other contractors.

The government has repeatedly argued that the F-35s are the best jets for the armed forces.

In her report released Tuesday, Auditor General Sheila Fraser slammed the government over its recent purchase of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters for maritime patrol and the sole-sourced contract for CH-147F Chinook helicopters for battlefield transport. The purchase of both helicopters carries a combined price tag of $11 billion. Delivery of both is years behind, and Fraser warned that rising costs could force the military to make training or operational cuts a result.

Fraser said her findings include lessons for the purchase of the F-35 jets.

During question period in the House of Commons Wednesday, Ignatieff said the auditor general's report proves the government's procurement policy "is an incompetent mess."

"Will the prime minister listen to the auditor general, cancel the contract and open up a free, competitive and transparent bid to replace Canada's CF-18s?" Ignatieff asked.

Harper said his government will review and implement the auditor general's recommendations, but defended the government's procurement process.

"Let me tell you about responsibilities we've got here. We've got a responsibility to replace fighter aircraft and not play politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform," Harper said.

"We've got a responsibility when it's national aeronautics industry day here to make sure we protect the people, the men and women who work in that industry, against the irresponsible behaviour of this leader of the opposition."

NDP Leader Jack Layton also raised the possibility of operational support cuts as a result of cost overruns in the helicopter contracts.

Layton said the only way to fully implement the auditor general's recommendations would be to cancel the F-35 contract. "Or are they going to repeat the helicopter boondoggle?" Layton asked.

"The military has been absolutely clear about the need here," Harper said. "In fact, this is simply coalition politics playing games with military contracts against what the entire aerospace industry and the entire defence establishment of this country realizes is necessary. The government is going to proceed."

With files from The Canadian Press

[scm]

The entire world is in a slow but steady arms build up. Canada needs to keep pace

History repeating itself? Human nature.

[KMAC]

Unlike the previous helicopter fiasco, Canada hasn't signed any contracts yet and won't be subject to the penalties and fees that seriously cost us in the past.

This is a typical Harper tactic. Create a divisive issue (F-35s, the mandatory cencus), and let the liberals and NDP freak out in the media. Harper ends up looking calm, cool, and collected. If the issue gains any traction and things are getting hot, prorogue parliament.

kmac.

[YYZatcboy]

I've been through government spending training, and the first rule is NO SOLE SOURCING CONTRACTS!...

[Slats]

This is a story of waste, cost-overruns, failure of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

Thought I was reading about the long gun registry there for a second.

I wish I could figure out what alternate reality Ignatieff and politicians of his ilk exist in.

[Moose47]

Hey Iggy

If you scrap the deal, I have a Sabre Mk. 6 with only five hours on it for sale

[Meecka]

If you scrap the deal, I have a Sabre Mk. 6 with only five hours on it for sale

Ok I'll bite.... No shit? Got parts with that thing? cause if so you and i need to talk!!!

[Troubleshot]

Ok, I am no military guru so I will pose this question for those of you in the know. Why wouldn't the Canadian Air Force just get newer F-18's, like a new Super Hornet? What is the cost difference between the F-18 S-Hornet and the F-35? I am sure there are role differences between the two but I am not sure to be honest.

And wouldn't staying with a similar, proven aircraft(f-18) save money in all aspects of the operation? The Pilots, Tech's would be familiar and I would imagine most of the ground support equipment would be the same.

Don't get me wrong I fully support the Air Force upgrading equipment I am just not sure this upgrade will Fly (sorry for the cheesy pun) with the majority of the Canadian public.

I am wary about the F-35, we all know about brand new aircraft and the hurtles they have to over come to get the "kinks" worked out once in service...that being said if Lockheed are willing to absorb the cost over runs in that situation it is a moot point.

Please discuss.

[Finnegan]

Remember John Diefenbaker? We could get a few contractors to spend another 20 years designing something really great, then cut them to bits. Or maybe buy some surplus T-33s from Romania or Yemen...You know, some really cutting edge stuff. Or - maybe pull some Cf-100s out of mothballs yet again.

We have some of the best fighter pilots in the world but they're going to have to fly worn out old tin because nobody wants to play nice (mostly because they just don't want to).

One of these days we're going to need air support, God forbid, and 2 guys in a J3 with a 410 and a stick of dynamite ain't gonna cut it, even though it may cost only $10 Billion. Competition is great and necessary, but in this scenario, you often get what you pay for. It's always interesting how a manufacturer can put together a defense contract that absolutely never lives up to the hype and the price is allowed to increase exponentially as the delivery date disappears in the rear-view mirror.

[modi13]

Ok, I am no military guru so I will pose this question for those of you in the know. Why wouldn't the Canadian Air Force just get newer F-18's, like a new Super Hornet? What is the cost difference between the F-18 S-Hornet and the F-35? I am sure there are role differences between the two but I am not sure to be honest.

And wouldn't staying with a similar, proven aircraft(f-18) save money in all aspects of the operation? The Pilots, Tech's would be familiar and I would imagine most of the ground support equipment would be the same.

Don't get me wrong I fully support the Air Force upgrading equipment I am just not sure this upgrade will Fly (sorry for the cheesy pun) with the majority of the Canadian public.

I am wary about the F-35, we all know about brand new aircraft and the hurtles they have to over come to get the "kinks" worked out once in service...that being said if Lockheed are willing to absorb the cost over runs in that situation it is a moot point.

Please discuss.

Even an upgraded Super Hornet wouldn't last much longer. The US Navy is planning on phasing theirs out around the same time as we'll be getting rid of our current ones to be replaced with (guess what) the F-35. Just because we don't have a role for it currently doesn't mean we won't in a couple of decades, and it's better to be ready now rather than having our asses handed to us in 2030 because our fighters are fifty years out of date.

[. ._]

Cool!

Then we could buy 179,775 of these disposable jets. Spare parts? Who cares! When it breaks, eject and get a new one!

http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft% ... g21UM.html

If we used up one jet per day it would last us 492 years!

(do the math. 16 billion is a LOT of cash)

-istp

[Siddley Hawker]

Given their experience with the Sea King replacements and the used submarine fiasco, why do the Liberals think they are qualified to comment on any military equipment contract?

[yyz monkey]

Why would we want to buy planes that fly slower and 1500kms less than what we currently have?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/16 ... hter-jets/

[Walker]

Is this thing VTOL?

[TheCheez]

I've been through government spending training, and the first rule is NO SOLE SOURCING CONTRACTS!...

Buying a jet is a little different than buying desks or a fleet of trucks.

[pika]

Why would we want to buy planes that fly slower and 1500kms less than what we currently have?

Possibly because the F18 is coming up towards the end of it's useful life and is being replaced with "...the most advanced combat aircraft ever devised..."?

Is this thing VTOL?

Three variants; conventional take off and landing, short take off and vertical landing, and carrier based.

[Meecka]

I believe we opted for the conventional takeoff models. correct me if I'm wrong.

[x-wind]

Wonder why the world has recently been building up arms Segue, should we really be following the leader with the arms build up? In the name of the economy or what?

As for human nature ... I like the word evolve.

I'd cancel the deal too. Range of 1200NM , speed of Mach 1.6

Guess who has the biggest coast line in the world, not so strategic.

Also, the name. The Joint and Strike part. We're a Sovereign country, I like to think, and having a Joint in the name isn't cool seeing as we'll only have one fighter. Second, maybe I'm off but, "Strike Fighter" doesn't sound like "Interceptor" which is what I'd think would be more mmm progressive.

We fuel the Romans, we shouldn't have to subsidize them too.

[x-wind]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8660368875#

[Walker]

1200NM???
A ho can do that....

No idea who these guys are, but an interesting read....
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html

Having NOT ever looked at any REAL data, my opinion is rather mute, however seems to me like these are resources that could be better spent elsewhere...

[Slats]

should we really be following the leader with the arms build up?

What is the alternative? Get left behind?

The fact of the matter is that we currently do, and will continue to, require a capable air force. As a result, our aging fighters need to be replaced by models that will remain viable into the foreseeable future, not just some 6 dressed up as a 9. Exactly what aircraft fits that bill? I don't know, I'll leave that up to the air force to decide what they require to do the job we ask them to do. If they say they need the F-35, then give them the F-35. And I certainly don't care how much it costs, because if you think that this is wasteful government spending when compared to the innumerable other ways in which our tax dollars get pissed away en masse, you're living in a fantasy world.

[Slats]

1200NM???
A ho can do that....

Well then strap some air to air missiles to your ho and hope that any enemy aircraft are Sopwith Camels or at least something that does significantly less than 200 knots.

[Inverted2]

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

[x-wind]

Thanks for posting that link Walker, it's an interesting read. I'd quoted Wikipedia on the F-35 range and speed, to be objective about it one would have to say it's not real data.

[GoinNowhereFast]

should we really be following the leader with the arms build up?

We're replacing 80 jets with 65. Sure they're more advanced and reliable aircraft, but that's hardly an arms build up. I'd call it staying up-to-date. Sorta like replacing your Pontiac Fiero with a Saturn Sky.

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

So true.