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

By Beenthere on 3/14/2012 3:03:26 PM , Rating: -1
It's always dangerous allowing other folks to have the latest tech that can save our pilots.

By Da W on 3/14/2012 3:11:24 PM , Rating: 5
Lol. Like Canada's a big threat.

By StevoLincolnite on 3/14/2012 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 5
Didn't Canada fight off and win the invasion by Americans in 1812?

Just saying, don't count out the little guys, they can sometimes surprise you and cause allot of damage.

By ebakke on 3/14/2012 3:35:44 PM , Rating: 4
If we invade Canada in the near future, we have much larger problems than the F35.

By Solandri on 3/14/2012 8:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
The U.S. also invaded Canada at the beginning of WWII. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, the fear was that it was the prelude to a Japanese campaign against North America. The closest part of North America to Japan is Alaska, then a U.S. territory. The U.S. was eager to fortify it against Japanese attack.

There were no roads to Alaska - all equipment had to be transported by ship or plane. So the U.S. Army was itching to build a road through British Columbia and the Yukon into Alaska. The U.S. asked Canada for permission to enter and build the road, and Canada dragged its feet. After nearly a week, the U.S. Army said !@#$ it and invaded Canada. It just moved all its equipment across the border and began building the road. The next day, the Canadian government quietly approved the U.S. request with the stipulation that the road be turned over to Canada after the war.

And that's how the ALCAN highway was built.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 3:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh we didn't "invade" Canada. We were in a war against the British who were using Canadian militia. Canada was basically used by the British and French to fight us. So hey, we had to go get those hosers.

And they didn't win! It was a stalemate :) Plus we burned Toronto to the ground (battle of York). True they turned around and burned Washington DC (Canadians greatly exaggerate the extent of damage), I consider burning DC was probably a good thing. It could do with another if you catch my drift lol.

Just saying, don't count out the little guys, they can sometimes surprise you and cause allot of damage.

Yup, it was a classic mistake of underestimating the enemy. But that was 1812, after all.

By limitedaccess on 3/14/2012 3:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Things have changed quite a bit since then. Back then the Canadian/British Forces and US Forces had comparable numbers with the Canadian/British Forces being better trained and funded. Compared to now the US has more than 6 times the amount of active and reserve personnel, 9 times as many people fit for military duty, and a budget more than 20 times larger.

Also I think the more important issue is that in order for the US and Canada to come to a military conflict there would need be an extremely massive shift in the current relationship between the two countries.

By wordsworm on 3/14/2012 6:47:53 PM , Rating: 1
No... Canada is largely owned by the US. We're not even allowed to build our own jets. Canada is like an American territory without having the same rights.

By theArchMichael on 3/14/2012 8:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's what she said.

By Slappi on 3/14/2012 3:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hey check out their Navy before making ridiculous statements like that.

By masamasa on 3/14/2012 3:41:51 PM , Rating: 4
Ya, but we have 1,000,000 of those!!!

By VahnTitrio on 3/14/2012 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 1
I think what the world is realizing is this kind of aircraft is no longer necessary. Realistically it adds no value to anyone in any way.

By chrnochime on 3/14/2012 3:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Canada is just itching to take over the States /sarcasm

Give me a break. like we would want to take over your debt-ridden screwed up country.

By arazok on 3/14/2012 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
<Facepalm> Read that totaly wrong. Thought you were talking about the US taking over Canada.

By pcfxer on 3/15/2012 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 1
What are you retarded?

You are TRILLIONS in debt lol.

By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2012 4:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
I thought he was making a lot of sense.

By dark matter on 3/14/2012 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's so awesome at stopping bearded guys with backpacks and chinese kids at a computer no doubt....

By Jeffk464 on 3/14/2012 4:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
The fact is that Canada really doesn't have to spend money on defense thanks to its location next to the most powerful(currently) military in the world.

By Mint on 3/15/2012 8:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really have much to do with being next to the US. Their military spending is pretty much in line with most European countries.

By vXv on 3/17/2012 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
The US isn't spending that much more money on defense ... the offense makes the bigger part of the spending.

By Flunk on 3/14/2012 5:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
We can always buy the Eurofighter Typhoon anyway. We're only buying the F-35 to support our American allies. If you feel that way there are other options.

By tim851 on 3/14/2012 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 3
In most places "we the west" are having military actions, even F-4E Phantom II could still do the job, after some upgrades.

Yes. The B-2 Spirit is probably the most ridiculous example. Built to penetrate the heavily fortified Russian airspace, it will have spent its entire lifetime bombing third world countries, that could probably not mount a coordinated defense against the WWII air forces of any major power. And because it's super-secret, it makes everything more complicated, like not landing anywhere but home.

Traditional war is a concept of the past. The military is just to slow to realize it.

It always bemuses be when people talk about the strategics of an American-Chinese war. That war will never happen. By the time the American aircraft carrier fleets are in fighting range, both countries will be bancrupt and they will drag the world with them.
This is how Einstein's famous quote about World War IV being fought with sticks and stones becomes true: it's not the radiocative fallout that will destroy civilization as we know it, it's economic fallout.

The Middle Ages were not called the Dark Ages for nothing. But the Roman Empire didn't collape in a thermonuclear disaster. It was a lack of economics that brought demise afterwards.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki