Department of National Defence Misled Parliment over F-35

[Hawk]

So basically, the Department of National Defence (DND) pushed hard for the F-35 from the very beginning. Almost deciding that it was the jet, without considering any other options like the Eurofighter, or Super Hornet. They told the government Canada needed a 5th generation stealthy plane and the F-35 was really the only option.

Now there are huge cost over runs and the Conservative government is trying to back out of part or all of the program.

We should have just bought the Super Hornet in the first place. What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

National Post Article

[joness0154]

This is par for the course for the F-35 and, though not on the same scale, the F-22.

I honestly hope countries cancel their order for this. I'm sick of seeing "cost overruns" etc that rack up into the billions of dollars. That is unacceptable in any industry except, it seems, defense.

[Hawk]

Totally agree. Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a major defence project in the last 50 years that has come in relatively on budget or under budget?

Apparently Britain is having the same issues with the Eurofighter, so it seems endemic of the defence industry in general.

[NoDubJustYet]

What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

To bomb places like Libya?

[Hawk]

To bomb places like Libya?

Yeah, you could argue that we need the fighters to fulfill our NATO obligations, or you could say Canada will commit ground troops and logistics to these types of missions (Afghanistan etc) but rely on other countries for close air support and bombings. We're a country with the population of California after all.

[Hawk]

Canada feezes funds over F-35 and opens doors to alternatives!

This is kinda big news up here. Story still developing.



NATIONAL POST

[David@vwvortex]

Totally agree. Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a major defence project in the last 50 years that has come in relatively on budget or under budget?

Apparently Britain is having the same issues with the Eurofighter, so it seems endemic of the defence industry in general.

There are, but you'll just never hear about them b/c they don't make good news sadly. I've worked on several multi-million $ gov't contracts that went smoothly as can be(within reason). From a gov't contractor perspective MANY times there are things that are added on after the fact that royally screw the fundamentals up of the whole project, but yet the price remains the same or the company has to go back and request more $$ for the changes. Often times the companies just don't want to say no for a variety of reasons($$ being one of them) so you can get into these viscious contractual loops of the client wants stuff, but won't pay for it. Ultimately you end up w/a total cluster of a project if gets too bad.

F-35 though REALLY needs to go away. About time we've learned a lesson about trying to get an airframe to do WAY too much.

[ATL_Av8r]

You'll be screwed if polar bears ever develop radar.

[Mtl-Marc]

You'll be screwed if polar bears ever develop radar.

There are already a lot of radar stations up north. Polar bears just need to take control of them.

[Hawk]

F-35 though REALLY needs to go away. About time we've learned a lesson about trying to get an airframe to do WAY too much.

I haven't been following all the developments, but are they even expecting it to be a VTOL aircraft anymore or have they given up on that? Also, can the navy use them on ships yet? Cause otherwise what's left? Marines wanted VTOL, Navy wanted ship capable (obviously) has it just become an Air Force only plane.

I guess a country buying fighter jets is kind of like an individual buying a sports car. They know it's expensive and impractical and they can't really afford it, but it's just so damn cool.

How 'new' is the Super Hornet, as an alternative? I know it's not 5th generation stealth capable, but can is it significantly better than the F-15, F-16 in an air-to-air capability?

[Hawk]

Not to beat up on the defence industry, but the F-22 was a bit of a disaster from a cost standpoint, the Osprey was a cost and mechanical disaster and now the F-35?

Were the F-16, F-18, F-15 programs this problematic in the beginning?

[KahviVW]

I haven't been following all the developments, but are they even expecting it to be a VTOL aircraft anymore or have they given up on that? Also, can the navy use them on ships yet? Cause otherwise what's left? Marines wanted VTOL, Navy wanted ship capable (obviously) has it just become an Air Force only plane.

I guess a country buying fighter jets is kind of like an individual buying a sports car. They know it's expensive and impractical and they can't really afford it, but it's just so damn cool.

How 'new' is the Super Hornet, as an alternative? I know it's not 5th generation stealth capable, but can is it significantly better than the F-15, F-16 in an air-to-air capability?

You are mixing up different variants. The F-35A is the Air Force version that takes off and lands like a conventional aircraft, it doesn't do anything else, it cannot be used on ships. The F-35B is the STOVL variant and F-35C is the navalized variant. I'm not sure which version the Canadian military ordered. If they were smart, it would only be the F-35A to replace their CF-18s.

[AZGolf]

What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

Why would you want to? The North Pole and surrounding arctic belongs to Russia anyway.

[Hawk]

Why would you want to? The North Pole and surrounding arctic belongs to Russia anyway.

You can't argue with a flag on the bottom of the sea floor.