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

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.

quote:
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.

http://www.funnypictures24.com/funny-military-pict...


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


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














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