F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Kirkhill]

<insert obligatory Haletown response praising F35 and damning Harry Swain as a clueless dilettante>

That's beneath you mate.

I don't think you would accept that kind of gratuitous commentary from others when they disagree with your positions.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Haletown]

That's beneath you mate.

I don't think you would accept that kind of gratuitous commentary from others when they disagree with your positions.

Cheers, Chris.

No worries.  I found it both amusing and very revealing.

 

[Haletown]

An external view . . .  Overall good summary


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_content=DoD+Contract+Taxonomy+%7C+Canada%27s+F-35s+%7C+Pakistan%27s+F-16s+%7C+AIM-9X+%7C+Paveway+IV&date_sent=2012-04-05+14%3A24%3A47#canada-options-f-18-rafale-eurofighter-gripen

 

[observor 69]

Certainly one of your best Edward,:Quote from E.R.Campbell  Today at 08:29:27 »

"Harry Swain hits the real question which, in so far as I can see, has never been addressed by the defence staff: why does Canada need this aircraft? We You They might get away with not having to address the question of why does Canada need front line, multi-role, manned jet fighters at all? for one more generation but I am about 99% certain that if I stopped an important cabinet minister, say Jim Flaherty or John Baird, and said "Why the F-35, Minister? What's the role?" neither could answer."



BZ

 

[FSTO]

Certainly one of your best Edward:

Harry Swain hits the real question which, in so far as I can see, has never been addressed by the defence staff: why does Canada need this aircraft? We You They might get away with not having to address the question of why does Canada need front line, multi-role, manned jet fighters at all? for one more generation but I am about 99% certain that if I stopped an important cabinet minister, say Jim Flaherty or John Baird, and said "Why the F-35, Minister? What's the role?" neither could answer.



BZ

Insert any type of military equipment. We need a serious discussion on what our military is required to do and how are they going to do it. But I will be a rotting corpse before anyone in the House of Commons has a serious discussion about anything.

 

[Maxadia]

<insert obligatory Haletown response praising F35 and damning Harry Swain as a clueless dilettante>

Isn't there a rule on this site against personal attacks?

 

[Haletown]

Isn't there a rule on this site against personal attacks?

Like I said, no worries.

You know you are over a target rich environment when they throw up a little flack that doesn't reach altitude and just confirms they are harmless.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Isn't there a rule on this site against personal attacks?

That would take some pretty thin skin for that to be considered an attack.  I throw harder punches at folks whose stuff I agree with.

 

[Journeyman]

I throw harder punches at folks whose stuff I agree with.

  :nod:

I figure that saying, "you are one limp-dick, stupid, mo-fo" is a personal attack. Saying "here comes an obligatory recurring post, without anything new added," is not. You see these in quite a few threads -- US Politics comes to mind. 

But that's just my interpretation. Mind you, I tend to go out of my way not to hurt peoples' feelings here.

 

[Haletown]

seems the adults are in agreement, we can move on now.

 

[Haletown]

Let the hysteria begin  . . .  Worthington is usually much better than this.


"According to a CBC report, if Canada does get the F-35, the lifetime costs of maintaining it are expected to reach $1.5 trillion. And that cost will rise. It doesn’t leave much to spend on the army, or helicopters, or equipment to keep our troops effective wherever their next assignment may be."


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/04/f-35-purchase-on-the-radar-worthington


Well maybe if we kept it flying for  a couple of centuries.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is a much ore trenchant analysis of the F-35 issue:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom/

Peeling back the layers of misconduct in the F-35 fiasco

Andrew Coyne

Apr 4, 2012

There are so many layers of misconduct in the F-35 affair that it is difficult to know where to start. Do we especially deplore the rigging of operational requirements by Defence officials to justify a decision that had already been made? Or should we focus on the government’s decision to buy the planes without even seeing the department’s handiwork? Is the scandal that the department deliberately understated the cost of the jets, in presentations to Parliament and the public? Or is it that its own internal figures, though they exceeded the published amounts by some $10-billon, were themselves, according to the Auditor General, gross underestimates?

It’s all of those things, of course, and more: a fiasco from top to bottom, combining lapses of professional ethics, ministerial responsibility and democratic accountability into one spectacular illustration of how completely our system of government has gone to hell.

This was, until last year’s shipbuilding contract, the largest single purchase in the country’s history. And yet it was carried out, as we now learn, without proper documentation, without accurate data, and without any of the normal procurement rules being followed. Defence officials simply decided in advance which aircraft they wanted, and that was that. Guidelines were evaded, Parliament was lied to, and in the end the people of Canada were stuck with planes that may or may not be able to do the job set out for them, years after they were supposed to be delivered, at twice the promised cost.

But of course it’s much worse than that. If department officials played two successive ministers of Defence, Gordon O’Connor and Peter MacKay, for fools, the evidence shows they did not have to exert themselves much; if they did not offer evidence to back their claims, whether on performance, costs, or risks, it is because ministers did not think to ask for any. Nor was this negligence confined to Defence.

The passage explaining how Public Works was persuaded to sign off on the deal is perhaps the most damning in the Auditor General’s report. Anxious to avoid having to put the purchase out to competitive bids, as is usually the practice, Defence officials hit upon the scheme of drafting the requirements in such a way that only the F-35 could meet them — needlessly, as I mentioned, as the government agreed to go ahead with the purchase a month before the requirements were delivered: that is, before they even knew what the planes were supposed to do, let alone whether they could do them.

Nevertheless, at some point in the process somebody at the department of Public Works and Government Services became suspicious of Defence’s claims, and alerted their superiors. What kind of documentation did the “senior decision makers” (who they?) at Public Works demand from their Defence counterparts? Take it away, Auditor General! “In lieu of a formalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis,” Public Works informed Defence it would go along with the sole-source dodge if it were provided a letter, “confirming National Defence’s requirement for a fifth generation fighter and confirming that the F-35 is the only such aircraft available.” Wait, it gets better: The letter was produced “the same day.” Still better: “There were no other supporting documents.” Still better: “It is important to note that the term ‘fifth generation’ is not a description of an operational requirement.” Stop! You’re killing me!

Whether ministers knew they were peddling the same falsehoods is to some extent beside the point. If they did not know, as the saying goes, they should have. It is plausible that a kind of willful blindness might have set in. If ministers were too willing to believe their officials, it might have been because they liked what they were being told. The Auditor General’s report leaves little doubt why: because of the wealth of “industrial benefits” they were promised (“a driving motivation for participation… used extensively as a basis for key decisions… briefing materials [placed] particular emphasis on industrial benefits…). This is what comes of allowing pork-barrel politics into decisions that should be guided by only one consideration: getting value for the taxpayers’ money.

But what’s really at issue here is neither duplicitous bureaucrats nor credulous ministers. It is the lack of transparency throughout. If officials kept their ministers in the dark, it is also true that ministers kept Parliament in the dark. Had anyone outside government been allowed to see the requirements, we might have been able to judge whether these were as essential to the defence of the nation as claimed; whether the F-35 was indeed the only plane that could fulfill them, and so on. Had Parliament been given the costing information it demanded, we might have been in a better position to judge who was right, the government or its critics — before the last election, not after. Remember, it was the government’s refusal to provide just this information that was, in part, the reason for the motion of no-confidence that precipitated the election.

So this is also what comes of Parliament’s prerogatives, its powers to hold ministers to account, being ignored or overridden. These aren’t procedural niceties, of concern only to constitutional law professors — “process issues,” as more than one member of the press gallery sneered at the time. They’re the vital bulwarks of self-government, the only means we have of ensuring our wishes are obeyed and our money isn’t wasted. Parliament having long ago lost control of the public purse, it was only a matter of time before the government did as well.

Postmedia News

I share Coyne's view that process matters - in the great scheme of things our government process matters infinitely more that which fighter plane we fly. I blame DND for the process screw-ups, primarily I blame lack of leadership by both the DM and the CDS; it appears to me that ADM(Mat) and CAS were being 'cowboys,' both should have been reigned in years ago.

 

[Good2Golf]

Mr. Campbell, I don't necessarily disagree with you in principal, but I feel as though I should ask, "Which ADM(Mat) and which CAS?".

The 2002 Mr. Williams and LGen Campbell, under the watchful eye of the Rt. Hons Cretien and Martin and the Hon Eggleton?

Today's Mr. Ross and LGen Deschamps under the responsible eyes of the Rt Hon Harper and Hons Mackay and Flaherty?

...or all of the above? 

Upon what mandate did Parliament first approve millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the JSF Progam in 2002.  Surely that very first authorization forms a rather important part of whatever fiduciary forensics should be pursued. Accountability should be a consistent theme throughout the activity, not one that varies due to partisan pressure.

Regards
G2G

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In the end based on the merits of the aircraft, I  am FOR the JSF. But we cannot hide the fact that this government has purposely hidden real numbers from Parliament. Surely even the Tory loyals on this site must see that reality. and act or vote accordingly.

You're kidding right? You expect me to change my vote, three years from now, over money we never spent, based on a projected estimate by someone else, for something we don't even know if the PS is going to pick?

Don't forget who started the whole F-35 fiasco. I shudder to think where we'd be right now if the liberals still held the reigns on what they started.

There's a fantasy to help you left wingers sleep at night. It can mix right in with your other fantasy of the libs ever regaining power.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr. Campbell, I don't necessarily disagree with you in principal, but I feel as though I should ask, "Which ADM(Mat) and which CAS?".

The 2002 Mr. Williams and LGen Campbell, under the watchful eye of the Rt. Hons Cretien and Martin and the Hon Eggleton?

Today's Mr. Ross and LGen Deschamps under the responsible eyes of the Rt Hon Harper and Hons Mackay and Flaherty?

...or all of the above? 

Upon what mandate did Parliament first approve millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the JSF Progam in 2002.  Surely that very first authorization forms a rather important part of whatever fiduciary forensics should be pursued. Accountability should be a consistent theme throughout the activity, not one that varies due to partisan pressure.

Regards
G2G

I think we need to divide the thing into phases:

1. Phase 1 is in 2002 when, probably at the behest of Industry Canada, we sign on as junior partners - hoping to get some contracts when production finally begins. Phase 1 is innocent in more ways than one - it is 'above board' but it is also hopelessly naive. We have just signed on, however tentatively, to a multi-billion dollar project and there is no formal, process driven effort to manage it;

2. Phase 2 is in about 2006 when we move up the "partnership" ladder - now, at least, an inter-departmental project office should have been formed. Here is where I blame the DM and CDS of the day;

3. Phase 3 is in 2010 when the government announces that it is going to buy the aircraft - now, without any question at all, an inter-departmental project office is mandatory and I once again blame the DM and CDS but I also blame another handful of very, very senior civil servants in PCO and PWGSC and the respective ministers. I don't care if the cabinet wanted this to be done without too much fuss and bother: DMs are big boys (and girls), they are expected to stand up to mere fly-by-night cabinet ministers and get their way; their "way" should have, must have included respecting the processes.

 

[Good2Golf]

Mr. Campbell, that seems a fair assessment by phasing. I may think there was a little less naïveté in 2002 than perhaps you imply, but your assessment appears sound.

Regards
G2G

 

[Haletown]

For reference purposes, everything JSF pre Jan 2006 was Liberal governments.  The first Harper minority government took over in Feb 2006.

 

[exabedtech]

F35 is the right plane.  You can't base future requirements on past needs, you have to assume the worst case and have at least some degree of readiness and inter-operability should it come to that.  Drives me nuts when the media types go on about how we don't need stealth or whatever else... as if they can predict our future conflicts.  I'd love to know which of them in the year 2000 correctly guessed that we'd be spending 8 of the next 10 years fighting in Afghanistan.

As for the process, there really is no doubt that the Conservatives have gone well out of their way to make this all sound a lot less expensive than they obviously know it will be.  I support the plan to replace our 1980s F18s with shiny new F35s mainly because I know that whatever we get, we'll still be flying it in 2040 so it better be good.  I do not support my government trying to bullshit me.  This isn't an anti-conservative thing at all.  I voted for these guys and would do so again if it were this week but PLEASE do not go down that same path as the Libs and only tell us what we want to hear.  Tell us the truth... we can handle it and we'd respect you for it.  Drop the attack ads, be honest, accept responsibility and show real leadership.  Is it too much to ask?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr. Campbell, that seems a fair assessment by phasing. I may think there was a little less naïveté in 2002 than perhaps you imply, but your assessment appears sound.

Regards
G2G

In my opinion naïveté is a mortal sin for senior bureaucrats, and generals.

 

[Haletown]

F35 is the right plane.  You can't base future requirements on past needs, you have to assume the worst case and have at least some degree of readiness and inter-operability should it come to that.  Drives me nuts when the media types go on about how we don't need stealth or whatever else... as if they can predict our future conflicts.  I'd love to know which of them in the year 2000 correctly guessed that we'd be spending 8 of the next 10 years fighting in Afghanistan.

Well according to John Ivison on today's Media Panel on Power & Politics, the real reason Harper wants this plane is he has figured out the future geopolitical chess board and has determined Canada needs an aircraft with First Strike ability so that 30 years from now we can take out Chinese aircraft carriers.

I am not sure who is smarter.  PM Harper for divining that future scenario or Mr. Ivison for figuring out PM Harper's secret game plan.

They always said he has a secret agenda.

Now we know.