backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by todd omy.. on Mar 18 at 8:29 AM

Canada reserves the right to back out of F-35

The cost overruns on the F-35 project are legendary and continue to mount. The costs of the F-35 program are spiraling at such a fast rate that many partner nations are considering canceling orders or significantly reducing purchase plans.
 
The latest partner nation considering reducing the order in place for the F-35 is Canada. The Canadian government has admitted that it might not complete the purchase of F-35s. The United States has long said that if partner countries cancel orders or reduce orders, the cost of the jet will spiral for all nations.
 
Canada originally agreed to purchase $9 billion worth of F-35 fighters for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canada intends to replace its aging CF-18 jets with the F-35.
 
“The… decision has not been made as to whether or not we are actually going to purchase, buy, acquire the F-35,” said Julian Fantino, associate defense minister.
 
“We have not as yet discounted, the possibility of course, of backing out of any of the program. None of the partners have. We are not,” he told the Commons Defence Committee Tuesday.


A group of Lockheed F-35B Lightning II fighters [Source: Lockheed Martin]
 
Fantino's comments are marked contrast to other comments offered by Canadian officials in the past who were staunch advocates of the F-35. In the past, Canadian government officials have gone so far as to accuse people who didn't support the F-35 of not supporting the armed forces.
 
The first indication of trouble in Canada came last month when Defense Minister Peter MacKay refused to confirm how many F-35's Canada would buy.
 
However, a spokesman for the Canadian Defense Ministry press McClusky told the Star-Telegram in an email, "Our position has not changed. We remain committed to the Joint Strike Fighter Program. A budget has been allocated. A contract has not been signed. We will make sure that the Air Force has aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of them."
 
The Pentagon has considered reducing the production rate of the F-35 to an even slower rate to allow more time to fix issues discovered in flight testing.

Sources: Star-Telegram, The Star



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
We all saw this coming. Once again the United States agrees to stupidly enter a multinational "joint" venture, only to absorb 90+% of the costs and be left holding the bag in the end.




RE: Of Course
By AEvangel on 3/14/2012 2:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why anyone thought the Govt doing anything was going to work out well in the end.


RE: Of Course
By Quadrillity on 3/14/2012 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 1
It's "the American way" now. Next article we will see is the U.S. blamed for not helping [insert war torn nation] with their problems.

And of course, following that story will be one of how everyone hates the U.S. for meddling in everyone's business. I think the worst part is that no-one heeds the warnings of our very first president anymore. Beware of entangling foreign alliances!


RE: Of Course
By theaerokid on 3/14/2012 3:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's "the American way" now. Next article we will see is the U.S. blamed for not helping [insert war torn nation] with their problems.


Funny you should say that. George Clooney is working the talk circuit right now to "raise awareness" of Sudan's crisis after his last trip. Even went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right here in the nation's capital.

Right on about the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" point. So what are we supposed to do about Sudan, George?


RE: Of Course
By dark matter on 3/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Of Course
By Quadrillity on 3/14/2012 4:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you missed the point of my post, then I should clarify: I think we should heed the strong advice of our first president about entangling foreign affairs (meaning anything that doesn't directly threaten our freedom and sovereignty).

By the way, how would the world be a safer place? I'm not saying it would or wouldn't, but what made you come to that conclusion?


RE: Of Course
By KCjoker on 3/15/2012 6:15:53 PM , Rating: 1
I wish we would...but then when there's a world crisis guess who they turn to for help? Take Haiti for example, sure other countries helped but the USA did the majority of the work/cost.


RE: Of Course
By vXv on 3/17/2012 5:34:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah but this didn't require any fighters (or even a military really).


RE: Of Course
By arazok on 3/14/2012 3:33:07 PM , Rating: 4
Well the old way saw the US government absorbing 100% of the costs, and holding the bag in the end. So this seems like an improvement, doesn't it?

This really isn't that big of a deal. Everyone signed up to this deal knowing that if we all bought XX number of jets, they would cost $## to produce per jet. As the recession hit and countries began backing out of the deal, the costs rose, leading more and more countries to back out.

Canada was one of the few countries to grudgingly stick by this deal, until it became clear that even the US government was planning to scale back it's order - dramatically increasing our costs even further.

If you guys can't commit to your own deal, why on earth would anyone else?

And really, nothing happens as far as NATO goes without the US leading the call, so having NATO partners buying jets and using them to bomb our enemies is really just a foreign subsidy of your own military operations anyway. It's not like Canada could ever decide to attack...lets say, Syria on it's own accord without getting explicit permission from the US.


RE: Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 3:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you're preaching to the choir. I never wanted the damn thing to be built in the first place. I said years ago, if you think the F-22 is too expensive, wait until this "JSF" business starts.


RE: Of Course
By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2012 8:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
"We all saw this coming. Once again the United States agrees to stupidly enter a multinational "joint" venture, only to absorb 90+% of the costs and be left holding the bag in the end."

It still benefits the US in the end you get force amplification. Traditionally the US, Canada, Australia,and England go to war together. So you end up with a much larger force than any of the countries could have managed on its own. So even if they bought them without paying any of the development costs its still a good deal.


RE: Of Course
By TSS on 3/15/2012 3:40:13 AM , Rating: 5
Hey screw you buddy. We dutch agreed because you guys said they would be about $30 million a pop. Not $130 million. How about you first learn to calculate before you start pointing fingers.

And our cabinet is basically still saying "we'll leave it up to the next guys" even though 78% of the population (according to the last poll) is calling on them to pull the plug already. Even though they did order a 2nd test plane recently.

Which cost $300 million. Ironically, that's the same amount we're cutting from spending on the chronically mentally ill because "we're spending too much".

Yeah. Don't expect our order of the JSF to go through.


RE: Of Course
By NellyFromMA on 3/15/2012 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're writing as if somehow America is being spoken for here as a single person?

You do know America isn't a single person, right?


RE: Of Course
By todd omy on 3/18/2012 8:29:14 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm yea see countries are bailing faster than light moving away from the sun, is because costs are spiralling out of control. If the budget for the F35 was a dart board the size of the moon, the dart thrown at that budget may hit mars... BUT that's only what it looks like now, that budget dart might be on a one way ticket outside of the solar system. IF you could build a plane and keep the $ even remotely close to the original cost countries wouldn't be bailing on this epic failure of a project.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki