Topic: Ottawa to sole-source $9 billion for 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters

[GK .Dundas]

Sarcasm On
I like the Tory way of doing business.    I am willing to bet that this contract will be re-announced at least 4 times before anything is signed.   
Sarcasm Off

Only 4 times I  think it might be more. Mr McKay seems to developed a almost obsessive need to be around people carrying cameras and microphones

[GAP]

Only 4 times I  think it might be more. Mr McKay seems to developed a almost obsessive need to be around people carrying cameras and microphones

He still thinks he's got a brass ring for the leader's place after Harper.....time has told....he's not the next Messiah

[PuckChaser]

Only 4 times I  think it might be more. Mr McKay seems to developed a almost obsessive need to be around people carrying cameras and microphones

Not to derail this into a pointless political debate, but at least we know what $16b is being spent on, vice previous Liberal government's ability to lose billions of dollars into their friends' pockets.

[GK .Dundas]

Not to derail this into a pointless political debate, but at least we know what $16b is being spent on, vice previous Liberal government's ability to lose billions of dollars into their friends' pockets.

Do  we? I suspect that some of that will eventually end up in someones pocket that it shouldn't .Ottawa being what it is  and people being people, I 'm beginning to see a return of some of the same attitudes that existed under the Liberals.
The really funny thing is  I 'm a Conservative supporter .

[MCG]

Letter from the Minister of National Defence in today's Ottawa Citizen:

Re: Door open for Canada to opt out of $16B Joint Strike Fighter deal, July 26.

I would like to set the record straight on the federal government's decision to purchase the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

Canada has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program since 1997, when the Department of National Defence signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of $10 million U.S. As part of this phase, Canada participated in the extensive and rigorous U.S.-led competitive process where two bidders, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, developed and completed prototype aircraft. This process led to the selection of Lockheed Martin as the JSF manufacturer in 2001. To purchase this aircraft, our Conservative government exercised its options under the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program memorandum of understanding with the nine partner nations to acquire the F-35.

This is the only fighter aircraft capability that meets the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces and enables our men and women of the air force to do the jobs that we, as Canadians, ask of them. The F-35 ensures that the Canada Forces will continue to work seamlessly alongside our allies and provides Canadian pilots with the highest probability of mission success, and the highest probability that these men and women return home safely to their families.

With this procurement, Canadian industry has a golden opportunity to participate in the largest defence program ever undertaken, a program estimated to be worth more than $383 billion. This purchase will allow Canadian industry to contribute to the F-35 global supply chain of approximately 3,000 aircraft, advancing its technology, while bringing jobs and sustained economic benefits to regions across Canada.

Our government is making the decision at the right time for the Canadian Forces, Canadian industry and Canadian taxpayers. We are getting the best aircraft for the best value.

Peter MacKay,
Ottawa
Minister of National Defence

[dapaterson [2]]

Young Peter's missive would perhaps be more convicing if he could detail those operational requirements, vice glossing them over while touting the regional economic development boondoggle.

"Compatible with allies" could be met by any number of other platforms - the reason we are part of so many STANAGs.

[Jim Seggie]

Young Peter's missive would perhaps be more convicing if he could detail those operational requirements, vice glossing them over while touting the regional economic development boondoggle.

"Compatible with allies" could be met by any number of other platforms - the reason we are part of so many STANAGs.

da you and I both know that "operational requirements" rank second....sometimes lower....to economic development. That's why Bristol Aerospace lost the CF 18 maintenance contract to Quebec.

[STONEY]

Maybe Quebec got the contract because they had a better bid than Bristol.  The Government of Australia also thought they were better and gave them the contract for their update project.

[E.R. Campbell [5]]

Perhaps the QC bid was technically better. My recollection, however, is that the government of the day (Brian Mulroney was PM) admitted that the Bristol Aerospace (Winnipeg) bid was better or, at least, lowest price/fully compliant but that the contract was awarded to Canadair (QC) because Montreal was designated as Canada's aerospace centre. This designation was, partially, in response to the final failure of QC's auto manufacturing capability. There was a perception that everything was migrating to Southern Ontario and the Montreal, especially, was dying.

[Haletown]

Maybe Quebec got the contract because they had a better bid than Bristol.  The Government of Australia also thought they were better and gave them the contract for their update project.

Not.

Bristol's proposal won both price & technical.  Clear, outright winner.

However they failed geography and political impact parts.



Merit trumped by Bulroney's need to pander to Quebec politics.

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell:

There was a perception that everything was migrating to Southern Ontario and the Montreal, especially, was dying.

And now southern Ontario is dying too, perhaps:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/29/tasha-kheiriddin-the-lesson-to-be-learned-from-windsor/

A broader lesson about government picking, er , winners?

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

As for those great international sales:

Armed forces stunned by Trident bill
Defence chiefs have been left stunned and angry by the Treasury's refusal to finance the £20 billion cost of replacing Britain's ageing nuclear deterrent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7920328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html

...the number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is set to be halved...

...The number of Joint Strike Fighters could be cut from from 150 to 75...

Mark
Ottawa

[GK .Dundas]

As for those great international sales:

Armed forces stunned by Trident bill
Defence chiefs have been left stunned and angry by the Treasury's refusal to finance the £20 billion cost of replacing Britain's ageing nuclear deterrent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7920328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html

Mark
Ottawa

Translation : Kiss the carriers goodbye It apparent the bean counters have won again the brits are reducing themselves to coastal patrol navy  just as we are .Granted that is not are our or for that matter their  policy but that's what is happening .

[E.R. Campbell [5]]

Here reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting assessment of the politics of the F35 by two University of Ottawa professors:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tories-and-grits-are-as-one-on-defence-policy/article1660646/

Tories and Grits are as one on defence policy
The desire to earn the respect of NATO allies is likely to trump domestic considerations


The F-35: high flight, high hopes.
CP


Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Critics were quick to jump on the Harper government when it announced a sole-source contract to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin. Chief among their laments were the cost, the government’s decision to forgo a competitive process, and the lack of clear articulation of why Canada needs these new planes. In deflecting these criticisms, Defence Minister Peter McKay argued that the F-35 is the ideal platform for the air force and that the government acted quickly to ensure that Canadian industry reaped the most benefits from the multicountry program. It was also suggested that the F-35s are necessary to protect Canada’s sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic.

While both sides have a case to make with respect to the procurement costs and industrial benefits, the sovereignty question sidesteps the larger issue behind this purchase. Although the F-35’s ability to defend Canadian airspace was surely taken into account, that is not what makes this plane especially attractive to the government and the air force. The value of the F-35 is that it will permit Canada to take part in multinational air operations overseas for decades to come. Put simply, in buying these aircraft, the government will ensure that Canada can play a visible role in future allied air campaigns across the world.

In fact, if the Liberals eventually form a government, it’s this aspect of the F-35 that is likely to persuade them to go through with the purchase, however grudgingly. Despite some divisions within the Liberal caucus, the party is largely united behind the idea that Canada must continue to play an active role in the world. And while the Liberals’ international policy strategy emphasizes diplomacy and development over defence, once in office, they will acknowledge that the Canadian Forces offer them a useful means of playing “a role of pride and influence” in global affairs. Whether in Africa, South America, Asia or the Middle East, there will be a demand for Canadian military forces, and a Liberal government will be as eager to meet it as a Conservative one.

Behind the F-35 and other recently announced procurements, such as the joint support ships, there’s a another story: the endurance of a consensus between the Liberals and the Conservatives about the general direction of Canada’s defence policy. The two parties will spar over acquisition costs, end dates and who supports the troops more. They also may disagree over embracing the “responsibility to protect,” robust United Nations peacekeeping operations or contributing to NATO missions. But, in the end, both the Liberals and the Conservatives want to deploy Canada’s military on meaningful, internationally recognized missions overseas, an objective that requires continued investment in technologically advanced, combat-capable forces.

Both parties think the military should “do good” around the globe, and their views about what this involves are closer than they may be willing to admit. To be blunt, neither party believes that the Canadian Forces should prioritize the defence of Canada or North America. Such an approach would be inconsistent with how they understand international affairs and, most important, Canadian pride and prestige.

Admittedly, this defence policy consensus may surprise some observers. The war in Afghanistan is increasingly unpopular with Canadians, suggesting that a promise to keep Canada out of future conflicts of this type would find favour with a sizable segment of the public. Negative reactions to the F-35 purchase, moreover, indicate that many Canadians are wary of spending the money required to keep the military equipped for expeditionary operations that involve the threat of force and interoperability with key allies such as the United States, Britain and France. Within the two major parties, however, the desire to earn the respect of NATO allies probably will trump these domestic considerations.

Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie are assistant professors at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

I suspect (maybe just hope) Profs Lagassé and Massie parsed the Liberal (and Conservative) defence policy statements with great care and attention before they arrived at their optimistic conclusion.

I agree that a solid majority of Canadians oppose ”spending the money required to keep the military equipped for expeditionary operations that involve the threat of force and interoperability with key allies.” As I keep saying: ubiquitous red T-shirts and yellow ribbons to the contrary, support for the CF by the Canadian public may be a mile wide but it is only an inch deep and it does not extend to maintaining well equipped, combat ready forces.

[Rifleman62 [3]]

Appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press.