Canadian defence officials misled ministers in F-35 fighter jet whitewash: Auditor General

[Adar]

Full article
OTTAWA — Department of National Defence 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 jet.

Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s scathing assessment, released today, 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.

The report forced immediate changes with the Conservative government promising a complete and public review of the stealth fighter program and opening the door to potential competitors.

I have made some comments about Canadian ministers being the only ones still believing a 75 MUSD procurement cost but now it seems like even they will have to rectify their claims. The Auditor General is putting the blame on the DnD for misleading the politicians in this case. But in my experience politicians are very good at making sure that they are kept unaware of any uncomfortable truths. Either by claiming that they have not received any reports or by adamantly refusing to accept independent reports and failing to verify their own reports when questioned.

Canada is far from the only nation doing this but I think it is getting more and more obvious that military procurements are a tool in diplomacy rather than an insurance when the tools of diplomacy ultimately fail.

[Holger Danske]

There are no major wars going on, so why shouldn't military procurements be another tool of diplomacy?

That said I do find it stupid that tools of soldiers aren't bought because of their qualities but because of government contracts. Basically politicians don't know about military stuff nor do they care if it actually works.

[Condottiere 40K]

Seems like a fifty percent increase; perhaps the formula that they are now using is tied to a fifty year span to pay for the cost of purchasing and maintaining the aircraft. 30 billion for 65 aircraft equals 461 million each. 14.7 billion for training etcetera costs equals 226 million each.

If these figures are correct, even the Rafale has got to seem attractive in comparison.

[Stavroforos]

Canada, another country which didn't need the F-35 but which ended up forking money over to get it. Shouldn't be surprised that the money being spent for it is more than they claimed.

[LSJ]

I know that the air force has to acquire new planes to replace the CF-18s, and that the purchase will be big, but shouldn't we be responsible about it? What I've read from air force people is that there are many jets out there that would suit Canada's needs just as well that also cost a fraction of the F-35. The gov't bypassed the process of searching for replacement jets and allowing companies to compete for the contract. Instead, they chose the F-35 and a contractor right away and lied to the public about the cost.

[Nevins]

It is also the sort of thing you would expect from a nation whose most logical defense planning is relying on the United States. Flying equivalent aircraft is one way of ensuring that.

[CarbEast]

It is also the sort of thing you would expect from a nation whose most logical defense planning is relying on the United States. Flying equivalent aircraft is one way of ensuring that.

Not flying any aircraft at all would ensure that just as successfully. In fact it would be better.

[Holger Danske]

Flying equivalent aircraft is one way of ensuring that.

So why should Canada buy the F-35 scam when the Super Hornet is more than sufficient?

A plane that has to replace several planes with very different roles (F-16, F-18, A-10 and Harrier)

I simply cannot understand how the F-35 can replace the A-10, at any level. It's firepower and survivability is going to be pathetic in comparison (even with the stealth), and it's flying characteristics simply isn't geared towards low speed low altitude combat. Why not simply make a stealthy A-10 enstead. It's not like the USAF lacks resources for such a thing. Also what about the hundreds of skilled CAS pilots that will become useless when the A-10 is retired with no useful replacement in sight? What a complete waste of resources...

[Sir Furlong]

As a Canadian this doesn't surprise me, just 3 more year of this BS to go...

[YukonTrooper]

The Harper government knew the procurement cost a long time ago. Furthermore, it's provable beyond any reasonable doubt that they stonewalled any attempt at a competition process. They were committed to sending tens of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars down south just because it's America.

For the Cons to claim ignorance and blame the DND is laughable. If that doesn't work, they'll try blaming their young staffers, then pedophiles, then Anonymous. This government has no shame and no honor when it s up, instead blaming everybody else. Even the most diehard Canadian conservatives are starting to stir.

We should scrap this ridiculous F35 contract and buy new Super Hornets instead, which we already have a base maintenance program for, and supposedly which share some swappable parts with our old CF-18s. We can also appease the Yanks this way, as much as they'll cry about us running away from the F35s. With the billions saved, we could buy some new submarines which we are in desperate need of, especially considering the activity in the Arctic will continue to increase as the sea ice melts.

[Border Patrol]

Why does Canada have a military? Greenland looking menacing lately?

[Jaketh]

Why does Canada have a military? Greenland looking menacing lately?

Russia

[alexanderswift]

Russia

Indeed, having effective aircraft is important for patrolling the arctic border.


That said, I still think the F-35s are a bad idea. The Canadian government should be looking more into foreign options for new aircraft rather than just buying what the US government tells them.


I will never understand why my country keeps electing ing Harper.

[Heinz Guderian]

Why does Canada have a military? Greenland looking menacing lately?

they do border a country that has invaded/attacked something like 30 countries in the last 60 years. Best to be on your toes.

[Jaketh]

they do border a country that has invaded/attacked something like 30 countries in the last 60 years. Best to be on your toes.

Canada will be integrated into the Empire, their guns are our guns.

[Exarch]

so what other choice do the canadians have? go the rafale? Washington would go ballistic, but not as ballistic as if the Canadians got an upgraded sukhoi or PAK-FA

[alexanderswift]

so what other choice do the canadians have? go the rafale? Washington would go ballistic, but not as ballistic as if the Canadians got an upgraded sukhoi or PAK-FA

If only.

They could have simply gone with the Super Hornet, or the F-15E, both of which are very capable aircraft which can be used to fly the missions the RCAF needs.

I believe the RCAF wanted to upgrade to fifth-generation planes, as opposed to better fourth-gen.

[YukonTrooper]

so what other choice do the canadians have? go the rafale? Washington would go ballistic, but not as ballistic as if the Canadians got an upgraded sukhoi or PAK-FA

Super Hornet: placate the Americans; we already have a maintenance program for the F/A-18 platform; swappable parts with our aging CF-18s; dual-engine design makes more sense for our needs.

It would be entertaining to see Sukhois flying Canadian skies though. The Republicans would hysterically claim there was a Communist takeover happening up north.

[Trey]

they do border a country that has invaded/attacked something like 30 countries in the last 60 years. Best to be on your toes.

Canada has no right to peace.

[LSJ]

Why does Canada have a military? Greenland looking menacing lately?

Apart from domestic coastal defense and air defense, having a military is great for assisting in peacekeeping missions and helping out allies, even if only a token commitment is made.

It's not that we need a strong military - the US would pick up slack because a secure Canada is vital to them for economic and security reasons - but being able to defend yourself is the better option compared to relying completely on another state, and gives us a better ability to forge foreign relations, such as going into Afghanistan for rebuilding, anti-terrorism, and military training. If Canadian troops were never involved, the Afghan government wouldn't even remember Canada when it came to making contracts.