Print 26 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Apr 11 at 3:45 AM

MacKay sits in F-35 cockpit  (Source: The Star)
Canada still unsure of F-35 program

The reaction of some Canadian citizens and lawmakers has been mirroring the reaction we've seen in United States over the F-35 program. There's a lot of uproar over continually rising costs of the program and in Canada. There have also been allegations that some government officials knew the cost the program would be significantly more than originally promised, yet said nothing.
Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay has recently admitted that he knew the F-35 fighter program could cost as much as $25 billion. That price is billions of dollars more than the Canadian officials have publicly acknowledged. However, MacKay maintains there was never an effort to mislead Canadians on how much the project would cost.
MacKay maintains that the $10 billion difference between what the F-35 program has been officially acknowledged to cost and what the program could really cost is an accounting difference. The cost for Canada to purchase 65 F-35 fighters was originally said to be $15 billion. Some of MacKay's opposition in the Canadian government have gone so far as to request his resignation over the price row.
According to MacKay, the $10 billion difference is money the Canadian government already pays for things like fuel, salaries, and maintenance of the fleet of CF-18 fighters the F-35 replace.
“Yes, and it was explained to me just that way,” MacKay said.
“The additional $10 billion was money that you could describe as sunk costs. What we’re paying our personnel and the fuel that is currently being expended in CF-18s, jet fuel, maintenance costs — what we’re currently spending, so not part of a new acquisition,” MacKay said.
He continues saying that similar accounting methods are used in acquisition of other military hardware.
“I don’t agree that there was a manipulation of information,” MacKay continued. “Of course ministers are responsible for what takes place in their department. I’ve acted in good faith, always with an eye to providing the men and women in uniform with the best equipment that we can possibly get.”
While MacKay fights allegations that he misled Canadian citizens on the price of the F-35, other officials in the Canadian government still maintain that additional oversight of acquisition will be performed. Conservative party Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted last week that Canada has signed no contract to purchase the F-35. That statement hints that Canada could reduce the number of F-35 that purchases. Cuts in proposed purchases have been talked about in the past.
“The auditor-general has identified a need for greater independence and supervision over some of the activities of the Department of National Defence,” Harper said. “The government will put that supervision in place before we proceed.”
The amount of funds assigned to purchase 65 F-35 aircraft has also been capped. The cap placed on the purchase is C$9 billion, which works out to about $8.9 billion in the US. That funding includes money spent for the acquisition of associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, and training simulators.
“Funding will remain frozen and Canada will not purchase new aircraft until further due diligence, oversight and transparency is applied to the process of replacing the Canadian Forces’ aging CF-18 fleet,” Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said in a statement.

Sources: DefenseNews, TheStar

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: McKay will be fine...
By gamerk2 on 4/9/2012 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 0
LOL at inaccurate facts.

Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data, as of 2009.

Also, considering about 96% of all scientists agree that climate change is indeed occuring, I find it halarious when people try and debunk the theory and always fail miserably. Then again, I suspect you wouldn't even know how a planets albedo correlates with its temperature...

RE: McKay will be fine...
By degobah77 on 4/9/2012 1:44:00 PM , Rating: 3
As of 2009? The article I just read is from April 7, 2012 and states that the polar bear 'crisis' is BS, populations are defying predictions and are on the rise, as much as by 66% is some regions.

RE: McKay will be fine...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: McKay will be fine...
By FaaR on 4/10/2012 8:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
Bud, as if you'd know sience if it came up to you and bit you in the ass.

You'll believe any anti-AGW bollocks spouted by a rightwinger talking head because that's just what you want to hear. You're one of those easy-to-please, low-IQ conservative ignoramuses that'll run the US into the ground just by continuing to exist and giving off random noise, drowning out everything else.

RE: McKay will be fine...
By yomamafor1 on 4/10/2012 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because 3 years of conservation will suddenly allow polar bears to fully recuperate from threatened status.

Also, by 2012 April article, you mean this?

University of Alberta scientists Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher say the population is neither as "abundant" nor as "healthy" as a Nunavut Inuit organization claimed last week when it used the preliminary results of a recent survey to justify an increase in the annual harvest.

RE: McKay will be fine...
By cmdrdredd on 4/9/2012 9:45:27 PM , Rating: 1
Even when it's been proven that data was falsified you believe in global warming? Full of shit

RE: McKay will be fine...
By Mint on 4/10/2012 9:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
What falsified data? You mean the hockey stick? That data is irrelevant in the AGW body of evidence. Mann's attention whoring doesn't discredit all climate scientists. If a woman falsifies evidence in a rape trial, should all rape cases be dismissed as women lying?

AGW's problem isn't evidence. Its problem is that even the IPCC's own numbers don't make the case for urgent action. Even if we can create clean energy for a 5c/kWh premium (and it currently costs much more than that overall unless you go nuclear), we're talking about a trillion dollars to reduce the temperature by 0.02 degrees. That's a pathetic ROI. Developing countries will dwarf the emissions of the West in a few decades, despite having far lower per-capita emissions, yet who could morally force them to waste precious dollars on clean energy over education, infrastructure, health, etc?

Adaptation is the answer to AGW, not aggressive prevention. If you want to do some good for humanity, build some medicine, water pipes, etc for Africa instead of giving them a hundredth of a degree lower temperatures.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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