762 replies to this topic

[mentalfloss]

We buy
We don't buy
We buy
We don't buy
We .... don't know if we buy?


"We have not as yet discounted, the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Fantino, associate minister of national defence, told the House defence committee Tuesday.

"None of the partners have. We are not. And we’ll just have to think it through further as time goes on, but we are confident that we will not leave Canada or our men and women in uniform in a lurch, but it’s hypothetical to go any further right now."

Fantino's comments mark a change in tone from previous answers to questions about the possibility of rising costs and design problems with the Lockheed Martin fighter jets. He had previously left no possibility the government is exploring other options or considering pulling out of the agreement with allies like the United States, Norway, Italy and Australia.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/13/pol-fantino-steps-back-f35s.html

[Topaz]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

[huh]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

Shh, turn down the pathetic would ya, so if they make the right decision and back out of this deal you want to roast them for changing their mind, even if you agree with the decision, their is just no limit to how sad and small some of you are.

[PIK]

Shh, turn down the pathetic would ya, so if they make the right decision and back out of this deal you want to roast them for changing their mind, even if you agree with the decision, their is just no limit to how sad and small some of you are.

This is called leadership, when the builder tells the buyer they can't come thru ,the buyer will change course, they do not make decisions on what the TO star says.

[Smallc]

They shouldn't have been so resolute about this in the first place. My guess is that they were told at the meeting that things have changed. We may end up with 80 SHs in our future, or on the outside chance, the same number of Rafales

[madmax]

This is called leadership,

Its called a FlipFlop and its one I am happy about..

[Peeves]

Also if you have watched QP through the time the Tories have been defending this, they always said the the Liberals started this and we can't back out of the process and the other side kept saying nothing was signed. So now, we know again the Tories lied in the House again, so now, they have to do something to make themselves not look like morons, now that will be tough to do.

Provide proof of your ENTIRE claim please.

Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program from its beginning in 1997, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level-three participant, along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making Canada an early participant of the JSF program.[1][2]

On 16 July 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornets for C$16 billion (with all ancillary costs included) with deliveries planned for 2016. The intention to sign a future sole-sourced, untendered contract and the government's refusal to provide detailed costing became one of the major causes of the finding of contempt of Parliament and the subsequent defeat of the Conservative government through a non-confidence vote on 25 March 2011. This directly led to the F-35 purchase becoming an issue in the Canadian 2011 federal election, and resulted in a Conservative majority government.[3][4][5][6][7]

The Canadian government has only stated an intention to purchase the F-35, no contract will be signed until at least 2013. If Canada were to decide not to proceed with the contract there would be no cancellation fees, although Canadian aerospace contractors might lose future F-35-related contracts as a result.[8

[waldo]

They shouldn't have been so resolute about this in the first place. My guess is that they were told at the meeting that things have changed. We may end up with 80 SHs in our future, or on the outside chance, the same number of Rafales

just where are all those MLW guys who so forcefully and adamantly continued to play out the Harper Conservatives 'F-35 broken record' routine... in the face of any and every critical comment offered, or any and every expressed uncertainty from other countries, or any and every program misstep, etc..

[Smallc]

It's still the best plane. It's still probably what we'll be getting. The only thing that I can see harming this deal is the possibility of a massive cost increase, something that Lockheed Martin has said is not a possibility in the normal production run of the aircraft, which will start in 2017. The government has though, put themselves in danger by being as resolute as they were.

Edited by Smallc, 14 March 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Spiderfish]

It's still the best plane. It's still probably what we'll be getting. The only thing that I can see harming this deal is the possibility of a massive cost increase, something that Lockheed Martin has said is not a possibility in the normal production run of the aircraft, which will start in 2017. The government has though, put themselves in danger by being as resolute as they were.

It is my understanding that most of the cost overruns and engine issues are largely with the F-35B and F35-C (the STOL and VTOL and carrier models), and will not affect the F35A. If there are significant cost overruns with the conventional takeoff and landing model, it would only make sense to objectively review any cost implications. I'm not sure that being cautious and objective about such a large purchase is putting themselves in danger, although I would agree it does put them in a position of criticism by parties looking to criticize at any and all opportunity.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure that being cautious and objective about such a large purchase is putting themselves in danger, although I would agree it does put them in a position of criticism by parties looking to criticize at any and all opportunity.

But that's just the thing - they weren't nearly cautious enough before. That opens them up to a great deal of criticism.

[dre]

It's still the best plane. It's still probably what we'll be getting. The only thing that I can see harming this deal is the possibility of a massive cost increase, something that Lockheed Martin has said is not a possibility in the normal production run of the aircraft, which will start in 2017. The government has though, put themselves in danger by being as resolute as they were.

Sayings its the "best" is besides the point. Being an early adopter is dangerous in a lot of different ways. Since we know that 95% of what our airforce does is fly routine patrols and stand ready to shoot down rogue civilian planes, we should buy the plane that can adequately do that for the least ammount of money.

If we need a small contingent of JSF fighters as well for conflicts overseas then we can buy those later on once the plane has had all the kinks worked out of it, and we can assess its real performance and operational costs based on real data instead of projections.

[Spiderfish]

But that's just the thing - they weren't nearly cautious enough before. That opens them up to a great deal of criticism.

I'm not sure if it was so much a lack of cautiousness. My thought is that the resolve they showed in sticking to the deal was more of a reaction to the sudden resistance the Liberals showed to their own deal, revealing their contradictory stance. Talk about flip-flopping; it was quite an about-face for the Libs to make a deal such as this and then take an offensive position against the Conservatives on the same deal. The Liberals put huge pressure on the Conservatives to back out of the deal, and the Conservatives stood up against the rhetoric to show that the decision would be made on what's best for the country, not who can score the most political points by bitching and complaining. Now that the rhetoric has quieted down a bit, they can look at the decision objectively and make an informed decision based on facts.

Edited by Spiderfish, 14 March 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[Smallc]

That's not the way people are going to see it.

[punked]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Oh yah that never existed it was just a Conservative lie, one of many.