Canada’s political reversal is complete

[Hauldren Collider]

1) Cost. Every other country was reporting massive cost increases for it, the Tories said it wouldn't cost any extra. They repeatedly said this. It was part of their election platform. They're now admitting what everyone knew - it would cost far more than the $9B they said it would. Billions more. And this comes at a time when they're nickel-and-diming every government service.
2) Practicality. F-18s are twin engine planes, F-35s are single engine planes. They fly frequently over the arctic where there's very, very few places to land. When an F-18 loses an engine, it still has another usually. It can make it back to base to land. When an F-35 loses an engine, it crashes and burns. Further, they're replacing about 90 F-18s with 65 F-35s.
3) Usefulness. Canada doesn't send its fighters in until the US has already blown the **** out of air defenses. Why the need for super-expensive stealth planes?

I'm aware of the dual-engine issue; it was something brought up by the Navy. I imagine if the US Navy determined that the risks were acceptable for a single-engine plane, then it should be acceptable for Canada, but it's a valid criticism. Stealth is also useful for anti-air, I would imagine.

I'm going to guess that 1) was the biggest factor for people.

[Asher]

Another major component was there was no competition for the contract. The plane wasn't a perfect fit and the government didn't do due diligence in exploring all options.

[Wezil]

Will a Conservative actually step forward, accept responsibility and resign?

Not on your life. Several Cabinet Ministers should be eligible (up to and including Harper) but they'll probably blame it on a "low level staffer".

Amazingly some people still like to think Conservatives are "good with money".

[Hauldren Collider]

It's a single defense appropriation, Wezil, and I would hazard a guess that it's peanuts compared to the Canadian federal budget.

[Wezil]

Misleading Parliament is a serious offence in a parliamentary democracy HC. They intentionally mislead our elected officials on the proposed largest defence procurement in Canadian history. It's not small peanuts by any measure.

[Wezil]

Then they went on to label anyone who questioned the cost as un-Canadian (taking a page from the Republican handbook). It's true what they say - Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

[Uncle Sparky]

Then they went on to label anyone who questioned the cost as un-Canadian (taking a page from the Republican handbook). It's true what they say - Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

The Cons are doing this on every topic, though. If you are against their Bill allowing unrestricted, unwarrented government fishing of private internet, cell phone and new media, you are "on the side of the child pornographer". If you are against their changes to immigration, you "favour terrorists". (Vic Toews, 2 summers ago.)
On the F-35 portfolio, they made it clear that anyone who didn't support the purchase, or questioned its validity, were against our troups. Period.
I suspect the Cons are looking for a convenient 23 year old intern to take the wrap for this, too.

[regexcellent]

The thing that's really fascinating about the F-35 is that despite the massive cost increases, the export partners aren't getting nearly as uppity about the program as the United States. I think there are two reasons for this:

1) Even with the cost increase business many militaries see it as a "deal of a lifetime" matter, since so much of the funding has been covered by the United States;
2) The actual increase in capability offered by a stealth aircraft is enormous and it's astonishing to most that the US would even consider sending this onto the export market, so this is the one-time opportunity to get that capability in this generation of jet fighters

The single engine is not nearly as much of an issue as it used to be, for Canada in particular. Canada does not currently operate any aircraft carriers of any kind. There are no Canadian naval fighter squadrons. Obviously pilot safety is a greater concern over water; it's pretty hard to drown over land. Two engines used to be useful because jet engines weren't all that reliable. With modern computer control, jet engines are way more reliable than they used to be; hence we have twin-engine intercontinental jets like the Boeing 777 when previously they were four-engine. Lots of countries have operated single-engine jets at this point with tons of success. The British have even exclusively operated single-engine jets off of their aircraft carriers ever since introducing the Sea Harrier. The F-16, one of the most successful jet fighters of all time and one of the fighters specifically designated for replacement by the F-35, is single-engine.

In retrospect, I think it would have been cheaper to navalize the F-22 instead of building the F-35C, and add strike capability to the F-22 instead of building the F-35A. The F-35 could then have been built with solely the USMC/Royal Navy in mind without having to deal with all these other intertwined requirements. The commonality of the aircraft turned out to be responsible for massive price hikes.

But none of that is related to Canadian politics.

[Wezil]

But none of that is related to Canadian politics.

Or to this issue really. The scandal isn't over the capabilities of the plane so much as the way the procurement was being handled.

[regexcellent]

Right. But obviously the coverup would be more desirable to the Conservatives if they truly believe that the procurement is important. I'm pretty confident the Canadian military does.

Nobody wants a repeat of the SH-3/CH-124 Sea King replacement.

[Tupac Shakur]

Calgary's vision (and, more generally, Western Canada's) became ascendant in Ottawa - lower taxes, smaller government, no special status, indifference to constitutional reform, conservative social policy, little interest in the environment.

Can someone explain how the F-35 is a scandal in Canada? What's scandalous about replacing your F/A-18 fleet?

The F-35 is a poorly designed and hugely overpriced piece of ****. Canada is right to reject it.

[regexcellent]

Well, Canada's not rejecting it.

[Hauldren Collider]

Drake has no evidence for it being poorly designed given that it has no operational record to speak of. Overpriced, perhaps, but many of the doubts cast on the f-35 were also cast on the v-22 which had an even more protracted and scandalous development history. Now it's an absolutely stellar aircraft.

[Tupac Shakur]

Well, Canada's not rejecting it.

I don't care enough about Canada to know the actual details of their F-35 scandal. I will say that it's not much of a scandal if they're not going to reject it, however, so they should just man up and make the smart call already.

[Wezil]

Right. But obviously the coverup would be more desirable to the Conservatives if they truly believe that the procurement is important. I'm pretty confident the Canadian military does.

Nobody wants a repeat of the SH-3/CH-124 Sea King replacement.

The military certainly wants the F-35 and are at the root of this scandal.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, if they really do think the procurement is important they have just managed to delay the process by their own BS. If they planes really are needed to replace the F-18's in the time frame suggested they will have a hard time doing so now.

They well and truly botched this file.