HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DEFECTIONS HAVE BEGUN: Ca...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:19 AM

DEFECTIONS HAVE BEGUN: Canada Rejects The Pricey F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-backs-out-of-f-35-deal-2012-12



***SNIP

Then last spring Auditor General Michael Ferguson called out a bunch of party conservatives who'd been low-balling the jets costs.
From Canada.com:

Last spring, Ferguson ignited a political firestorm when he reported that the top-line cost cited by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign – $9-billion for 65 planes, or $15-billion including maintenance and other life-cycle costs – was $10-billion below the Defence department’s internal estimate.

Even the internal figure of $25.1-billion was suspect, critics said, because it assumed a 20-year life cycle. The longevity of the Lockheed-Martin-built aircraft, according to the Pentagon, is 36 years.

KPMG’s audit, due out next week, has confirmed the contention, long made by critics such as former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams, that the F-35 program’s real cost would be much higher than any previously stated government estimate, sources say.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-backs-out-of-f-35-deal-2012-12#ixzz2EMsMmpBU

13 replies, 1585 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply DEFECTIONS HAVE BEGUN: Canada Rejects The Pricey F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Original post)
xchrom Dec 2012 OP
marmar Dec 2012 #1
xchrom Dec 2012 #2
jmowreader Dec 2012 #3
Kolesar Dec 2012 #5
jmowreader Dec 2012 #7
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #13
Kolesar Dec 2012 #4
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #6
jmowreader Dec 2012 #8
heaven05 Dec 2012 #9
knightmaar Dec 2012 #10
harun Dec 2012 #11
tuvor Dec 2012 #12

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:26 AM

1. Good. At least some countries are cutting back on MIC welfare.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:33 AM

2. Nice way to put it. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:42 AM

3. This plane has two immutable problems

The first is it's designed to counter threats that don't exist and may never exist. The military did that during the Cold War, and sometimes it was good - we expected the Soviet 125mm tank round to be far more powerful than it is, so the armor on the M-1 Abrams defeats it easily. With the F-35, the threats it is made to counter may never emerge...or the ones that do could overwhelm the plane.

The other, is it's overkill for the threats we actually face: insurgents and terrorists. Every time America has been attacked since 1981, the attackers were terrorists who either rented a truck, stole one or hijacked an airplane. Or they mailed the weapon to a Democrat. You don't need a multibrazillion-dollar plane to defeat these guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:47 AM

5. On 9/11, the US had very few Arab language translators

We need people to read campus newsletters and message boards to figure out who could be plotting "terrorist attacks". It's more effective than stealth jets, to put it mildly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:08 AM

7. Or competent ticket agents, apparently

When someone who's scared shitless tries to check in on a one-way ticket paid for in cash, and he has no luggage, you call airport security. Unless you were on duty on 9/11 and then you just let 'em on the plane.

We already had the tools to stop 9/11...if anyone would have bothered to use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:37 AM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:43 AM

4. Cool picture, but FTS...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:02 AM

6. More importantly, why do they think they need it?

 

They are not an aggressor nation like the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:10 AM

8. Maple syrup needs protecting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:35 AM

9. whoa!

truth to power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:48 AM

10. For those who aren't in to Canadian politics ...

... this is actually very unusual.

Our right wing government is all about "fighting terrorism", "supporting the troops" and "getting tough on crime". They've been lying to us about the cost of these jets for years, and the auditors have been beating them up over it constantly.

The fact that, after all the deceit and outright falsehoods, they're actually admitting they were wrong is quite significant. These people *never* admit that they're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to knightmaar (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:03 AM

11. Probably found a place they would rather spend the money so are willfully

tanking it themselves. Having to fight their own previous propaganda and lies. Which the Conservatives here in the U.S. have to do often as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:58 AM

12. Not necessarily rejected:

"The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but it now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/06/poli-f35-pmo-government-fighter-jets.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread