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

[inane]

I am glad that you are not the one making the decisions for this country. Why would you even suggest that we would have to defend ourselves against the Americans?? We have been working on an agreement with the US on resource development in the North, and once in place, there is no reason for conflict. We are also partners in the joint defence of North America with the US and have obligations under that agreement and under NATO.

We are also part of NATO which gives us additional joint defence but we are expected to do our part. I have absolutely no respect for the people who think that we don't need to defend ourselves, as that is truely insane.

[aliboy]

I only mentioned them because someone did previously. My point stands if you choose to discuss it.

We can 'do our part' in different ways. Building fighter jets to fulfill some top gun dog fighting wet dream is a waste of money.

[Electro Rock]

Again, defend ourselves against what? The Russians? Chinese? Americans? You think if push actually ever came to shove we would have a snowballs chance in hell with or without a few dozen jets?

Of course not, this is just deterrence right? Who are we trying to fool here? This is insane.

[Monteeun]

I heard ppl pass out in these planes...

[Monteeun]

Both Russia and China are a lot stronger on paper but its unlikely they'd be able to focus more than a fraction of their strength so far from their borders and with so many commitments, so yeah in a defensive context 65 modern fighters would probably ensure we'd be more trouble than we're worth.

[Hobble]

Improve the Navy!

Figure the country with the1st or 2nd longest coast line (I think) would have a formidable navy.

In the near future, the ownership of the Artic waters and oil deposits will probably become a serious global conflict between Arctic countries.

Canada will need to maintain and protect its presence in the North.

[The Situation]

Here is a great read from Andrew Coyne that highlights the government's ineptitude pretty well.

Andrew Coyne: Peeling back the layers of misconduct in the F-35 fiasco

Andrew Coyne

There are so many layers of misconduct in the F-35 affair that it is difficult to know where to start. Do we especially deplore the rigging of operational requirements by Defence officials to justify a decision that had already been made? Or should we focus on the government’s decision to buy the planes without even seeing the department’s handiwork? Is the scandal that the department deliberately understated the cost of the jets, in presentations to Parliament and the public? Or is it that its own internal figures, though they exceeded the published amounts by some $10-billon, were themselves, according to the Auditor General, gross underestimates?

It’s all of those things, of course, and more: a fiasco from top to bottom, combining lapses of professional ethics, ministerial responsibility and democratic accountability into one spectacular illustration of how completely our system of government has gone to hell.

This was, until last year’s shipbuilding contract, the largest single purchase in the country’s history. And yet it was carried out, as we now learn, without proper documentation, without accurate data, and without any of the normal procurement rules being followed. Defence officials simply decided in advance which aircraft they wanted, and that was that. Guidelines were evaded, Parliament was lied to, and in the end the people of Canada were stuck with planes that may or may not be able to do the job set out for them, years after they were supposed to be delivered, at twice the promised cost.

But of course it’s much worse than that. If department officials played two successive ministers of Defence, Gordon O’Connor and Peter MacKay, for fools, the evidence shows they did not have to exert themselves much; if they did not offer evidence to back their claims, whether on performance, costs, or risks, it is because ministers did not think to ask for any. Nor was this negligence confined to Defence.

The passage explaining how Public Works was persuaded to sign off on the deal is perhaps the most damning in the Auditor General’s report. Anxious to avoid having to put the purchase out to competitive bids, as is usually the practice, Defence officials hit upon the scheme of drafting the requirements in such a way that only the F-35 could meet them — needlessly, as I mentioned, as the government agreed to go ahead with the purchase a month before the requirements were delivered: that is, before they even knew what the planes were supposed to do, let alone whether they could do them.

Nevertheless, at some point in the process somebody at the department of Public Works and Government Services became suspicious of Defence’s claims, and alerted their superiors. What kind of documentation did the “senior decision makers” (who they?) at Public Works demand from their Defence counterparts? Take it away, Auditor General! “In lieu of a formalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis,” Public Works informed Defence it would go along with the sole-source dodge if it were 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.” Wait, it gets better: The letter was produced “the same day.” Still better: “There were no other supporting documents.” Still better: “It is important to note that the term ‘fifth generation’ is not a description of an operational requirement.” Stop! You’re killing me!

Whether ministers knew they were peddling the same falsehoods is to some extent beside the point. If they did not know, as the saying goes, they should have. It is plausible that a kind of willful blindness might have set in. If ministers were too willing to believe their officials, it might have been because they liked what they were being told. The Auditor General’s report leaves little doubt why: because of the wealth of “industrial benefits” they were promised (“a driving motivation for participation… used extensively as a basis for key decisions… briefing materials [placed] particular emphasis on industrial benefits…). This is what comes of allowing pork-barrel politics into decisions that should be guided by only one consideration: getting value for the taxpayers’ money.

But what’s really at issue here is neither duplicitous bureaucrats nor credulous ministers. It is the lack of transparency throughout. If officials kept their ministers in the dark, it is also true that ministers kept Parliament in the dark. Had anyone outside government been allowed to see the requirements, we might have been able to judge whether these were as essential to the defence of the nation as claimed; whether the F-35 was indeed the only plane that could fulfill them, and so on. Had Parliament been given the costing information it demanded, we might have been in a better position to judge who was right, the government or its critics — before the last election, not after. Remember, it was the government’s refusal to provide just this information that was, in part, the reason for the motion of no-confidence that precipitated the election.

So this is also what comes of Parliament’s prerogatives, its powers to hold ministers to account, being ignored or overridden. These aren’t procedural niceties, of concern only to constitutional law professors — “process issues,” as more than one member of the press gallery sneered at the time. They’re the vital bulwarks of self-government, the only means we have of ensuring our wishes are obeyed and our money isn’t wasted. Parliament having long ago lost control of the public purse, it was only a matter of time before the government did as well.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom/

[The Situation]

And even the stealth capabilities are questionable...

F-35s won’t deliver: defence expert

Rebecca Lindell, Global News

Opposition calls for the Harper government to subject the F-35s to a competitive bidding process are being buoyed by an American defence expert who said the jets are “a gigantic disappointment.”

A scathing report from the auditor general found the government failed to run a fair competition to replace its aging CF-18 fleet, kept key information secret, and underestimated the costs of the project by at least $9 billion.

But the costs and the procurement process aren’t the only things that should be scrutinized, according to one American defence expert.

“You should get an audit of the airplane,” said Winslow Wheeler at the Center for Defense Information, an American defence think-tank that has been monitoring the U.S.-led F-35 program carefully.

“We already know that the performance of this airplane, even if it were to perform up to its original specifications, is a gigantic disappointment,” Wheeler said.

In announcing the government’s decision to buy 65 F-35s, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the aircraft is the best.

The Department of National Defence has described the F-35 as the sole fifth-generation stealth fighter, capable of avoiding enemies and surviving complex missions.

Despite the glitzy words, Wheeler said the F-35 simply can’t do what it claims, especially when it comes to stealth.

“What stealth really means is that the detection rate in front of radars is reduced, not eliminated, and it is only reduced for some radars at some angles,” he said.

Add a lower sortie rate and inferior aerodynamics, and the F-35s are simply a step backward, according to Wheeler.

“You’ve got lots of alternatives,” he said. “Start over again, do a competitive fly-off of successful designs, let the F-35 compete, if it can get an airplane in the air, and proceed.”

Both the New Democrats and the Liberals want to see the government open a competitive bidding process to replace the C-18.

“We need to have a complete review of what our needs are beyond 2020,” Liberal

interim leader Bob Rae told reporter on Wednesday. “Once that review has been completed and the government has made a decision, Parliament has made a decision effectively, then we need to have a tender, an open tender."

Doubts about the F-35’s capabilities and delivery date have been swirling for months, fueled by reports of ongoing technological complications.

Last month the United States Government Accountability Office reported the jet’s high-tech helmet meant to project information onto the pilot’s visor wasn’t functional. The same report found only four per cent of the mission system requirements for full capability had been verified.

Other issues slowing the jet’s development include problems with the power system, cracks in the aircraft’s frame and inferior satellite capability for in Arctic settings.

Even if the Conservatives announced a new competition, the F-35 would still come back as the winner, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

“It’ll come back and say there is no other competitor,” he said, disputing Wheeler’s claim that there are alternatives.

Huebert said the “theoretical” alternatives are either outdated like the F/A-18 Super Hornet or just as expensive like the Eurofighter.

The Conservatives have softened their language on their commitment to the F-35s, saying they would examine other aircraft. They have stopped short of

opening a tender.

“We will continue now, with the guidance of Public Works, to move forward with a proper acquisition process to replace the aging CF-18s,” said MacKay on Wednesday, referring to the newly established F-35 Secretariat at Public Works.

Born in the wake of the auditor general’s report, the secretariat is mandated to review the F-35 project, its costs and its compliance with procurement policies before the government signs any contracts to replace the CF-18s.

© Shaw Media Inc., 2012. All rights reserved.

Read it on Global News: Global News | F-35s won’t deliver: defence expert

[aliboy]

At least this has happened before any orders were signed.

[canucks since 77]

What scares me is what other skeletons are hiding in the Conservative's closet?

[Satan's Evil Twin]

What scares me is what other skeletons are hiding in the Conservative's closet?

[hsedin33]

This isn't the plane you use for that.

http://www.ipolitics...sibility-party/

'My humble opinion? Of course the government knew about what was happening, and what's more, strongly approved of it. Why? Because the F-35 was the handy way for the Harper government to expand a role for Canada's military that the country has never debated let alone endorsed. If instead of auditing the procurement process, Michael Ferguson had audited the plane itself, that would have become painfully obvious. The F-35 is not a peace-keeper's surveillance aircraft designed to protect Canadian airspace, including the Far North. It is a close support fighter designed to take part in U.S./NATO foreign wars like the recent Libya mission. The kind of missions the Harper government thinks are worth an $800,000 fly-over celebration of something yet to be established.' Michael Harris

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Federal cabinet knew F-35’s true $25 billion cost before election: Auditor-General

Postmedia News Apr 5, 2012 – 12:52 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 5, 2012 5:56 PM ET

REUTERS/Chris Wattie

True costs: Defence Minister Peter MacKay gestures while sitting in the cockpit of a F-35. Auditor General Michael Ferguson told MPs Thursday that federal cabinet would have known that F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion when the Defence Department provided Parliament with a $14.7-billion figure

‘Political fraud at the core of this government’: NDP

COMMENT: Michael Den Tandt

So that’s it then: They knew and they lied. To Parliament. To all of us.

If Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s word is to be believed — and there is no reason to think that it isn’t — then the federal cabinet and by extension the prime minister, and not just the anonymous gnomes in the Department of National Defence, are directly on the hook for the F-35 boondoggle, in the most egregious sense.

They knew before the last federal election that the jets would cost billions more than had been stated by DND — at least $10-billion more, around $25.1-billion. They allowed the department to publicly table an estimate of $14.7-billion.

By Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — The Harper Conservative government would have known that the F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion, not the $14.7-billion figure the public was told in the weeks before the last federal election, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson said Thursday.

In the most damning assessment yet of the trouble-plagued stealth fighter project, Mr. Ferguson said that the $25-billion figure — which was arrived at by the Defence Department in June 2010 and doesn’t include Canada-specific modifications, ongoing maintenance and other costs — “would have been known throughout government” because they were important for long-term budget planning.

“I can’t speak to sort of an exact date,” he said. “(But) at the point in time, to respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s office, it’s my understanding that the government had that number. That was their internal estimate and they should have used that as their opportunity to come forward with the full cost information.”

Mr. Ferguson refused to say whether he believed the government misled Parliament, but opposition parties said if the statement is true, it raises serious questions about whether the Conservatives intentionally withheld information about the troubled stealth fighter in advance of the election.

“I can’t speak to individuals who knew it, but it was information that was prepared by National Defence,” Mr. Ferguson said Thursday, “and it’s certainly my understanding that that would have been information that, yes, the government would have had.”

Mr. Ferguson could not say exactly which ministers or members of the Conservative government would have known the Defence Department’s true estimates, but he was clear that by government, he was referring to the executive, namely cabinet and other members of the Conservative government, not the bureaucracy.

“That $25 billion number was something I think that at that time was known to government,” he said. “It would have been primarily members of the executive, yes.”

REUTERS/Chris Wattie

Auditor General Michael Ferguson told MPs Thursday that the Conservative government would have known that the F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion

The Auditor-General made his comments after an appearance before a parliamentary committee Thursday morning where he was discussing his scathing report on the Defence Department’s handling of the F-35 program.

The cost discrepancy relates to the Defence Department’s response to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page’s controversial report on the F-35 in the weeks leading up to last year’s federal election.

Mr. Page had estimated the cost to be $30 billion, but the Defence Department publicly stated the figure was $14.7 billion. He subsequently came under fire from the Conservative government for his report.

The Auditor-General refused to say whether the government had intentionally withheld information or misled Parliament.

“I’m not trying to put any sort of value judgment on it,” Mr. Ferguson said. “What I’m saying is that was their opportunity to come forward with their information and they didn’t use that.”

http://news.national..._medium=twitter

[Ghostsof1915]

Build our own submarines (Or purchase these from Germany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

Put cruise missiles on board. These can patrol under the polar ice cap, and if you build say 12 of them, with 12+ cruise missiles each that's at least 12-24 carriers you'd sink. Since they run on diesel and hydrogen fuel cells you can run them on waste vegetable oil.

So while China and others seek oil for their planes. We can wipe out their naval air forces if needed.

That's a deterrent.

Then either buy some Eurofighters or Saab Gripens or build our own.

[Vapourstreak]

Build our own submarines (Or purchase these from Germany)

http://en.wikipedia....e_212_submarine

Put cruise missiles on board. These can patrol under the polar ice cap, and if you build say 12 of them, with 12+ cruise missiles each that's at least 12-24 carriers you'd sink. Since they run on diesel and hydrogen fuel cells you can run them on waste vegetable oil.

So while China and others seek oil for their planes. We can wipe out their naval air forces if needed.

That's a deterrent.

Then either buy some Eurofighters or Saab Gripens or build our own.

[aliboy]

Build our own submarines (Or purchase these from Germany)

http://en.wikipedia....e_212_submarine

Put cruise missiles on board. These can patrol under the polar ice cap, and if you build say 12 of them, with 12+ cruise missiles each that's at least 12-24 carriers you'd sink. Since they run on diesel and hydrogen fuel cells you can run them on waste vegetable oil.

So while China and others seek oil for their planes. We can wipe out their naval air forces if needed.

That's a deterrent.

Then either buy some Eurofighters or Saab Gripens or build our own.

[Electro Rock]

Build our own submarines (Or purchase these from Germany)

http://en.wikipedia....e_212_submarine

Put cruise missiles on board. These can patrol under the polar ice cap, and if you build say 12 of them, with 12+ cruise missiles each that's at least 12-24 carriers you'd sink. Since they run on diesel and hydrogen fuel cells you can run them on waste vegetable oil.

So while China and others seek oil for their planes. We can wipe out their naval air forces if needed.

That's a deterrent.

Then either buy some Eurofighters or Saab Gripens or build our own.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

It's funny, Canadian government lies to the people before the election, gets caught red-handed, and people focus on what fighter jets Canada needs.

Am I the only one feeling betrayed by the government? Outraged maybe? A little bit? Accountability? Do we pretend nothing happened like the Harper government tries to do? WTF is wrong with Canadians?!

[The Situation]

It's funny, Canadian government lies to the people before the election, gets caught red-handed, and people focus on what fighter jets Canada needs.

Am I the only one feeling betrayed by the government? Outraged maybe? A little bit? Accountability? Do we pretend nothing happened like the Harper government tries to do? WTF is wrong with Canadians?!

[Electro Rock]

It's funny, Canadian government lies to the people before the election, gets caught red-handed, and people focus on what fighter jets Canada needs.

Am I the only one feeling betrayed by the government? Outraged maybe? A little bit? Accountability? Do we pretend nothing happened like the Harper government tries to do? WTF is wrong with Canadians?!