Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Auditor General: F-35 Funding Frozen; Conservatives Promise Public Review


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
102 replies to this topic

#1 The Situation

The Situation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,698 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:58 AM

The biggest problem concerning Canadian sovereignty is undoubtedly the Arctic. I don't think stealth fighters are the solution when it comes to Arctic sovereignty. Its not like we are going to sneak into Russian or American territory.

I remember in 2005 when Harper was talking about building three new icebreakers but then changed his mind. He should reconsider because that is definitely more needed than stealth fighters.

Auditor general: F-35 funding frozen; Conservatives promise public review


OTTAWA — The Conservative government reacted quickly Tuesday to a scathing auditor general's report on the F-35, promising a complete and public review of the stealth fighter program and opening the door to potential competitors.
"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.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson's report, tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, alleges Defence Department officials twisted government rules, misled ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays in a determined effort to ensure Canada purchased the F-35 stealth fighter.
The biting assessment puts the military's own cost estimates for Canada's involvement at $25 billion — instead of the publicly stated $16 billion — and questions assertions that Canadian industry stands to benefit from $12 billion in contracts.
It also says the F-35 was "clearly the fighter jet of choice" as early as 2006, and that officials intentionally played up the F-35's stealth capabilities to sidestep established purchasing guidelines.
"National Defence did not exercise the diligence that would be expected in managing a $25-billion commitment," Ferguson said. "It is important that a purchase of this size be managed rigorously and transparently."
In its response, the government said it is taking the project out of the Defence Department's hands and giving it to Public Works, with a committee of senior bureaucrats from different departments providing oversight.
It will also commission an independent review of the F-35 project while ensuring full compliance with government purchasing rules before approving any purchase, and provide regular updates on costs and schedules.
The military will also continue to evaluate other options for replacing the country's CF-18s, which opens the door to a potential competition. At the same time, Industry Canada will look at ways Canadian companies can continue to benefit from the project.
"Our participation has generated $435 million in contracts for over 60 Canadian companies resulting in skilled work that otherwise would not exist, with more opportunities to come," Industry Minister Christian Paradis said in a statement.
Ferguson's highly anticipated report says Canada initially joined the F-35 program in 1997 not with the intention of purchasing the stealth fighter, but to ensure Canadian industry could win contracts associated with developing and producing the fighter.
That changed in 2006 when a memorandum of understanding was signed by Canada and eight other partner nations committing them to long-term participation in the project. By then, the military was knee-deep in the program.
"By the end of 2006, the (Defence) Department was actively involved in developing the F-35, and a number of activities had put in motion its eventual procurement," the audit report says.
The report says that in convincing the Conservative government to sign on to the MOU, the military talked up the potential billions in contracts Canadian industry could secure if the country continued to participate in the project.
However, "while ministers were told, correctly, that signing the 2006 MOU did not commit Canada to buy the F-35, we did not see evidence they were told that retaining industrial benefits depended on buying the F-35 as a partner in the (Joint Strike Fighter) program."
In addition, "in the majority of cases, only the most optimistic scenario was put forward, rather than a range of potential benefits that reflected the inherent uncertainties in the projections."
Defence Department officials also did not tell ministers that by signing the memorandum of understanding, the government would be hard-pressed to run a fair competition in the future to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s.
Normal government procurement rules say departments must lay out their requirements so multiple companies can bid on the contracts. That, however, didn't happen with the F-35.
In fact, starting in late 2008, the report says, Defence officials "led a process to get a government decision to buy the F-35, partly in response to pressure from industry." Following Canada's signing on to the MOU in 2006, the report says, the Defence Department began putting together necessary documents to support the eventual purchase of the aircraft.
To get around requirements for a competitive bidding process, officials intentionally played up the fact the F-35 was the only fifth-generation aircraft available to Canada.
In May 2010, the Public Works Department, which is supposed to provide oversight of all major government purchases, questioned the military's assertion that no other aircraft could meet Canada's requirements.
It eventually agreed to waive requirements for a competitive bidding process "if National Defence provided a letter confirming National Defence's requirement for a fifth-generation fighter and confirming that the F-35 is the only such aircraft available."
Over the four years between when the MOU was signed and the Conservative government's announcement in July 2010 that Canada would purchase 65 F-35s, the report says, military officials regularly downplayed or glossed over cost overruns and delays afflicting the stealth fighter program.
"Officials from National Defence who participated in the senior decision-making committees of the (Joint Strike Fighter) program were regularly informed of these problems," the report says. "Yet in briefing materials from 2006 through 2010 that we have reviewed, neither the minister nor decision makers in National Defence and central agencies were kept informed of these problems and the associated risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18."
The report also notes "significant concerns about the completeness of cost information provided to parliamentarians.
In particular, it notes that in response to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's estimate in March 2011 that Canada's purchase of 65 F-35s would cost $30 billion, the Defence Department "did not include estimated operating, personnel or ongoing training costs" in putting the cost at $14.7 billion.
The fact is, the report says, National Defence's own cost estimates put the program at $25 billion in June 2010.
That wasn't the only time the military provided incomplete information, according to the auditor general's office.
"We observed that National Defence told parliamentarians that cost data provided by U.S. authorities had been validated by U.S. experts and partner countries, which was not accurate at the time," the report says. "At the time of its response, National Defence knew the costs were likely to increase but did not so inform parliamentarians."
Ferguson's report says National Defence "has been overly confident" about the F-35 program's budget and schedule, and raised concerns that the stealth fighter would not be ready by the time Canada's CF-18s are due to retire by 2020. It notes that "decisions taken to date as well as those yet to come will have impacts for the next 40 years."
In a rare move, the Defence and Public Works departments both said they disagreed with the auditor general's report, arguing they had conducted due diligence in managing the program.
The Conservative government initially announced in July 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion, a decision it steadfastly supported for the next year and a half, including during the last federal election.
The announcement was made without an open bidding process and would be this country's largest-ever military purchase.
But recent months have seen the Conservative government back away from that commitment, with Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino admitting last month that the government hasn't closed the door on walking away from the F-35.
This isn't the first time an auditor general has blasted the military for its conduct in the purchase of a major piece of equipment. Previous reports in 2006 and 2010 criticized the Defence Department for deliberately low-balling costs in order to get the equipment it wanted.
Two years ago, then auditor general Sheila Fraser concluded National Defence knew the Chinook heavy lift helicopter it wanted to buy was not an "off the shelf" model, with a relatively low risk of cost and time overruns.
Yet the department did not reveal this to Treasury Board when it sought project approval. As a result, the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9 billion and the helicopters still have not been delivered.
A similar story accompanied the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters, according to Fraser, who lamented the gaps in the fullness of information supplied to MPs. DND "underestimated and understated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters it intended to buy," she said.
lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com
Twitter:/leeberthiaume
© Copyright © Postmedia News


Read more: http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz1qztJMpSY




Posted Image

#2 Vapourstreak

Vapourstreak

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,213 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:43 AM

I'm not against the plane, I'm just confused of the way it was selected and purchased. Hopefully this will shed some light on the matter.

#3 Spitfire_Spiky

Spitfire_Spiky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:46 AM

This fiasco is going to go on forever.
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

#4 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:07 AM

Stealth isn't a luxury in a fighter anymore, but soon to be necessity.

The problem is that the F-35 is flawed in many ways and there are no other stealth choices readily available. Also the F-35 may not be stealthy and all around capable enough to serve for long enough to get our money's worth out pf such an expensive purchase.

I think we'd be best off thinking of our next fighter purchase as a 10-12 year interim measure only and going with something relatively cheap like the Gripen NG or Super Hornet
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#5 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:12 AM

Such a waste of money...

#6 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:51 AM

Such a waste of money...


It is, but its also a necessity, unlike say the $1 billion a year we waste on the DTES or the $10+ billion a year we spend on Quebec handouts or the $10 billion a year that seems to benefit only a small percentage of Natives.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#7 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:19 PM

It is, but its also a necessity, unlike say the $1 billion a year we waste on the DTES or the $10+ billion a year we spend on Quebec handouts or the $10 billion a year that seems to benefit only a small percentage of Natives.


I disagree that it's a necessity. And of course there is other waste elsewhere, doesn't make these billions wasted any better.

#8 -Goose-

-Goose-

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,586 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:45 PM

The icebreakers along with other shipbuilding projects are still a go IIRC.

Posted Image


#9 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:46 PM

I disagree that it's a necessity. And of course there is other waste elsewhere, doesn't make these billions wasted any better.


Well you can't not have a viable airforce as a major country, and the current fighters need to be replaced soon, sooo...
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#10 -Goose-

-Goose-

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,586 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:51 PM

I disagree that it's a necessity. And of course there is other waste elsewhere, doesn't make these billions wasted any better.


The ones we have now are falling out of the sky, literally.

Posted Image


#11 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,067 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

Super Hornets are the way to go.

#12 Pickly

Pickly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:55 PM

Such a waste of money...


Real thought out response there bud nice to see you followed it up with a valid argument on why it's a waste of money when our cf 18's are 3 decades old with gen 1 technology where our allies are flying gen 4 fighters.



#13 Pickly

Pickly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:57 PM

It is, but its also a necessity, unlike say the $1 billion a year we waste on the DTES or the
$10+ billion a year we spend on Quebec handouts or the $10 billion a year that seems to benefit only a small percentage of Natives.


This.



#14 The Situation

The Situation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,698 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:27 PM

The icebreakers along with other shipbuilding projects are still a go IIRC.


The PM said he would get 3-4 more icebreakers that can break through the thicker parts of ice in the Arctic. He changed his mind to patrol vessels with a polar class of 5 otherwise known as slushbreakers.

Well you can't not have a viable airforce as a major country, and the current fighters need to be replaced soon, sooo...


I think we can have a viable air force with something cheaper than the F-35. With that extra money, we would could instead focus on icebreakers. We would have the money if we didn't waste our time in Afghanistan.
Posted Image

#15 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

I think we can have a viable air force with something cheaper than the F-35. With that extra money, we would could instead focus on icebreakers. We would have the money if we didn't waste our time in Afghanistan.


I think a lot of whatever savings we manage will have to be put towards the next generation of fighters. I seriously doubt whatever we end up selecting right now will be useful for much more than a decade past the expected in-service date of 2017 given the pace of technology.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#16 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:04 PM

Who are we fighting here? Why do we need an airforce? Are you actually worried about our sovereignty? Just because something is old means we need to replace it with something new? Why? The answers to these questions (and many more) are just assumptions.

We throw billions and billions of dollars at this---for what?

#17 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

Who are we fighting here? Why do we need an airforce? Are you actually worried about our sovereignty? Just because something is old means we need to replace it with something new? Why? The answers to these questions (and many more) are just assumptions.

We throw billions and billions of dollars at this---for what?


You never know, its not just a matter of actually using them in war but the deterrent effect they have. Canadians may respect debate and compromise but most of the outside world respects only power and capability when it comes down to it.

The CF-18 fleet is worn out and has served longer than most fighters of that vintage already, the U.S. started replacing its early model F/A-18s a decade ago.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#18 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:37 PM

You never know, its not just a matter of actually using them in war but the deterrent effect they have. Canadians may respect debate and compromise but most of the outside world respects only power and capability when it comes down to it.

The CF-18 fleet is worn out and has served longer than most fighters of that vintage already, the U.S. started replacing its early model F/A-18s a decade ago.


Who are we 'fighting' up there then? Who are we deterring? This just seems like a 1950's solution to a 2010's issue.

#19 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

Who are we 'fighting' up there then? Who are we deterring? This just seems like an American solution to a Canadian issue.


Fixed.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#20 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:50 PM

Who are we 'fighting' up there then? Who are we deterring? This just seems like a 1950's solution to a 2010's issue.


It could be anyone, from likely candidates like the Russians or Chinese to even our own allies to political entities that don't even exist yet.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#21 aliboy

aliboy

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:01 PM

Over the next 10 to 20 years, between them, China and Russia are expected to launch 10 to 16 new carrier battle groups, and the competition for resources is only going to become more intense, as in, up north. So, we need to be able to protect our borders, especially in the north.

The Dassault Rafale has the best situational awareness of any aircraft, other than the f35.

The new Smart-L marine radar, which our new destroyers will have, can detect stealth aircraft at a considerable range. As soon as the west can develop an aircraft that can also detect stealth, at range, it will make stealth less important.

#22 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:06 PM

Over the next 10 to 20 years, between them, China and Russia are expected to launch 10 to 16 new carrier battle groups, and the competition for resources is only going to become more intense, as in, up north. So, we need to be able to protect our borders, especially in the north.

The Dassault Rafale has the best situational awareness of any aircraft, other than the f35.

The new Smart-L marine radar, which our new destroyers will have, can detect stealth aircraft at a considerable range. As soon as the west can develop an aircraft that can also detect stealth, at range, it will make stealth less important.


Right, so our few dozen jets are going to deter them?

#23 aliboy

aliboy

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:16 PM

Right, so our few dozen jets are going to deter them?


The stealth of the F35 flying straight up north would be difficult to detect making it an effective deterrent to anyone trying to take our territory. If we have 65 F35 fighters and some SM3 missles and some conventional cruise missles, all up north, it could represent a pretty effective deterrent. Having said that, if the F35 program continues to go downhill, it might not scare anyone. lolThe US should do a major upgrade to the F22 and give it full situational awareness.

#24 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:19 PM

The stealth of the F35 flying straight up north would be difficult to detect making it an effective deterrent to anyone trying to take our territory. If we have 65 F35 fighters and some SM3 missles and some conventional cruise missles, all up north, it could represent a pretty effective deterrent. Having said that, if the F35 program continues to go downhill, it might not scare anyone. lolThe US should do a major upgrade to the F22 and give it full situational awareness.


Listen to you--take our territory? What is this the old west? Plunge a flag in the ground and declare it yours?

This isn't the 1950's anymore.

#25 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:25 PM

Listen to you--take our territory? What is this the old west? Plunge a flag in the ground and declare it yours?

This isn't the 1950's anymore.


That's exactly what's happening, and unlike a few decades back we only had to worry about other countries overfishing our waters and causing our East Coast fishing industry to collapse, this time it could end up costing a lot more wealth and prestige.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#26 aliboy

aliboy

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:26 PM

It is simply an issue of deterrent. The discussion is in theory only. The Russians do not respect weakness.

Edited by aliboy, 03 April 2012 - 04:27 PM.


#27 aliboy

aliboy

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,776 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:29 PM

Also, just wait until the fight for resources really heats up in say, 20 years. We could yet see a day when, if you ain't tough enough to keep what's yours, look out.

#28 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,534 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

Also, just wait until the fight for resources really heats up in say, 20 years. We could yet see a day when, if you ain't tough enough to keep what's yours, look out.


Exactly and air power is supreme.

I would be willing to take major cuts to the army and navy then our air force.

The north in an absolutely vital claim of resources for our future.

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#29 The Situation

The Situation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,698 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:45 PM

If someone violates Canadian airspace, you probably know that we aren't going to shooting them down. The response would be to intercept and tell them to turn back. We don't need to sneak up on them. The money is better spent on more icebreakers as a deterrent.

Also, the F-35 is a single engine fighter. The Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale are both twin engine which would be handy in the far north.

I think the best solution at this point would be to get something cheaper like the Super Hornet as an intermediary fighter until either the F-35 is much cheaper or something better comes along.
Posted Image

#30 The Situation

The Situation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,698 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 09

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:51 PM

Exactly and air power is supreme.

I would be willing to take major cuts to the army and navy then our air force.

The north in an absolutely vital claim of resources for our future.


Cuts to the navy would severely hurt our sovereignty on the far north. Our biggest Arctic sovereignty issue is how the Northwest Passage is considered international waters by most of the world.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.