Two things. First, this episode is incredibly frustrating as it just comes down to -- as the author states -- successive governments dancing around the cost for something that most voters don't care about (until there is a war, of course). That's an epic failure of leadership for both government and opposition. Defence is a core function of the federal government. Procurement is a core skill. Failing at both while trading barbs is embarrassing. Honestly, are there any adults who could do a detailed review of this mess and spell out what a non-insane military procurement looks like? Because I don't think I've seen one in my lifetime and I'm in my 50s!
Second, getting the F35s is a start and probably key for joint NATO operations. But I don't see a coherent strategy here even for air. What about drones? Air defense? Weapon systems? There is this sense that the purchase of the F35s represents a finish line, but I suspect there is a LOT more work to be done. And, we haven't fixed the process, so I'm not confident we'll make smart timely decisions.
I think we need to define (or, if it's well defined, clearly communicate) what we expect the Canadian military to do, what it needs to accomplish its goals, and what we need to do (funding, programs, procurement) to get them there. That's the policy discussion we need to have, but don't broadly seem to be having. And I say all of this as a voter that doesn't place military in my top five policy priorities! It's something I think any competent government should manage properly as table stakes and I am apparently wildly optimistic and naive in that belief!
"Canadian politicians refuse to tell the public one simple truth". they also refuse tot tell the simple truth of our current fiscal situation.
"The Canadian government failed the Royal Canadian Air Force in this procurement". The Canadian government has repeatedly failed in military procurement going back to the Ross Rifle in WW1
Politicians are creative liars by nature.....usually now in the form of providing zero answers to direct questions. We've arrived at a place where 50 years of fiscal incompetence has caught up to us, and none of them has a vision of the hole they've dug. This means, there is no leadership; just a hamster on a wheel in full panic mode.
Reading back, that $19B bill clearly made me blow my gaskets and, functionally, become a troll here at The Line today. Apologies for the venting; everybody I argued with is welcome to come over for drinks (and endless argument over them).
I've been angry at "weapons that don't work for enemies that don't exist" for 25 years, since Jim Burton's "The Pentagon Wars", and the F35 is kind of the ultimate bete-noir, worst-case example, so 88 of them at $216M each, was, ah, 'triggering', so to speak.
I used to vent my need to snark at the National Post, where nothing else happens in comments. Then I saw this article about how many anti-vax sites suddenly switched to emitting anti-Ukraine material in early March, revealing where they'd been coming from all along...and that day, many NP commenters also began emitting the same pro-Russia prattle. I realized that most of them weren't Canadian, or even carbon-based, and I can't be bothered any more.
But The Line should not become an acrimonious place, I really value it.
*sigh* - they don't buy fighter jets they get slagged on, they do buy fighter jets they get slagged on. I feel bad for any government trying to do what needs to be done in military procurement.
If i remember correctly the F35 had a number of problems back then and there were alternatives. The fact the governments procrastinated on doing anything was the problem.
Early days of the F-35s, was not one of the major issues the fact that this plane couldn't fly in our great white north on a single tank of gas? There was a whole laundry list of issues that for a long time no one was thinking this is a good deal, even if we get to fly with the Americans.
When Canada does military/war exercises with other countries, not everyone has the same planes, tanks, rocket launchers or whatever. I don't think it's necessarily the best plane at the best price but they didn't ask me. I can think of lots of reasons why they are going with the F-35 and it has little to do with flying so fast and so sneaky (stealth).
I wonder, though I imagine it is impossible, to follow the money in the 12 year saga. Who would have benefitted under the Harper agreement? Did those that benefit change through the completion (i.e. Liberal aligned companies, staff etc..) and who would benefit from the new agreement (again Liberal aligned). I mean, like in everything, there are ancillary benefits to all political actions, it seems in military procurement, since there is very little scrutiny except a the surface level, it would be a great place for skimming cash...also might explain why the Canadian military seems like a bottomless pit that just swallows money and provides very little return. I always wonder why at 70,000 person force with a budget of x can only support a 300 peacekeeping deployment in Mali for 6 months even when they were asked for more. Before putting any more money in to nation defence, I would like to see a massive, thorough audit of the expenditures for the last 10 years. Where did the money go and was it spent as intended to support Canada's defence or siphoned off to consultants or admin?
Well, I'm furious and horrified that the buy is taking place at all, especially after I granted The Line my brilliant plan to just buy a bunch of their old A10 Warthogs and vow to provide all close-air support for NATO's future wars. Would have cost a small fraction, and been a better NATO contribution. All they had to do was read The Line, and read an objective article on the F35, and have some common sense.
But, we have to hand it to the government for at least giving us seven years of respite before the $19B waste began. It's a big financial win. Assuming 4% time-cost-of-money, a delay of 7 years reduces the NPV down to 0.96^7 = 0.75, saving one-quarter of the Net Present Value of the planned expenditure, that's nearly 5 billion dollars!
Of course, the price we had to pay was 7 more years of being defended by unused F18s instead of unused F35s. I think we bought a few of those for a billion or so. Let's call the saving only $4B. Still a huge win. I'm actually underselling the win, though, because the operational/maintenance costs on the F35s would have been much higher than for F18s, so we avoided seven years of that wallet-hoovering as well.
And exactly what do we need these planes for? (The same applies to submarines and frigates). The lobbyists calling for more spending on military hardware never really say, it seems to me. Clearly it's not for defending our national territory, so where will they be used and for what? For example, what use were the frigates built in the 1980s that are now being replaced at eye watering expense, but to the great profit of the Irving shipyard in Halifax?
Two things. First, this episode is incredibly frustrating as it just comes down to -- as the author states -- successive governments dancing around the cost for something that most voters don't care about (until there is a war, of course). That's an epic failure of leadership for both government and opposition. Defence is a core function of the federal government. Procurement is a core skill. Failing at both while trading barbs is embarrassing. Honestly, are there any adults who could do a detailed review of this mess and spell out what a non-insane military procurement looks like? Because I don't think I've seen one in my lifetime and I'm in my 50s!
Second, getting the F35s is a start and probably key for joint NATO operations. But I don't see a coherent strategy here even for air. What about drones? Air defense? Weapon systems? There is this sense that the purchase of the F35s represents a finish line, but I suspect there is a LOT more work to be done. And, we haven't fixed the process, so I'm not confident we'll make smart timely decisions.
I think we need to define (or, if it's well defined, clearly communicate) what we expect the Canadian military to do, what it needs to accomplish its goals, and what we need to do (funding, programs, procurement) to get them there. That's the policy discussion we need to have, but don't broadly seem to be having. And I say all of this as a voter that doesn't place military in my top five policy priorities! It's something I think any competent government should manage properly as table stakes and I am apparently wildly optimistic and naive in that belief!
"Canadian politicians refuse to tell the public one simple truth". they also refuse tot tell the simple truth of our current fiscal situation.
"The Canadian government failed the Royal Canadian Air Force in this procurement". The Canadian government has repeatedly failed in military procurement going back to the Ross Rifle in WW1
Politicians are creative liars by nature.....usually now in the form of providing zero answers to direct questions. We've arrived at a place where 50 years of fiscal incompetence has caught up to us, and none of them has a vision of the hole they've dug. This means, there is no leadership; just a hamster on a wheel in full panic mode.
Reading back, that $19B bill clearly made me blow my gaskets and, functionally, become a troll here at The Line today. Apologies for the venting; everybody I argued with is welcome to come over for drinks (and endless argument over them).
I've been angry at "weapons that don't work for enemies that don't exist" for 25 years, since Jim Burton's "The Pentagon Wars", and the F35 is kind of the ultimate bete-noir, worst-case example, so 88 of them at $216M each, was, ah, 'triggering', so to speak.
I used to vent my need to snark at the National Post, where nothing else happens in comments. Then I saw this article about how many anti-vax sites suddenly switched to emitting anti-Ukraine material in early March, revealing where they'd been coming from all along...and that day, many NP commenters also began emitting the same pro-Russia prattle. I realized that most of them weren't Canadian, or even carbon-based, and I can't be bothered any more.
But The Line should not become an acrimonious place, I really value it.
*sigh* - they don't buy fighter jets they get slagged on, they do buy fighter jets they get slagged on. I feel bad for any government trying to do what needs to be done in military procurement.
If i remember correctly the F35 had a number of problems back then and there were alternatives. The fact the governments procrastinated on doing anything was the problem.
With new tech like drones and hypersonic missiles, I wonder how much we're chasing the trailing edge of a tech curve.
Just so Justin can "whip out" his new fighter jets.
Early days of the F-35s, was not one of the major issues the fact that this plane couldn't fly in our great white north on a single tank of gas? There was a whole laundry list of issues that for a long time no one was thinking this is a good deal, even if we get to fly with the Americans.
When Canada does military/war exercises with other countries, not everyone has the same planes, tanks, rocket launchers or whatever. I don't think it's necessarily the best plane at the best price but they didn't ask me. I can think of lots of reasons why they are going with the F-35 and it has little to do with flying so fast and so sneaky (stealth).
I wonder, though I imagine it is impossible, to follow the money in the 12 year saga. Who would have benefitted under the Harper agreement? Did those that benefit change through the completion (i.e. Liberal aligned companies, staff etc..) and who would benefit from the new agreement (again Liberal aligned). I mean, like in everything, there are ancillary benefits to all political actions, it seems in military procurement, since there is very little scrutiny except a the surface level, it would be a great place for skimming cash...also might explain why the Canadian military seems like a bottomless pit that just swallows money and provides very little return. I always wonder why at 70,000 person force with a budget of x can only support a 300 peacekeeping deployment in Mali for 6 months even when they were asked for more. Before putting any more money in to nation defence, I would like to see a massive, thorough audit of the expenditures for the last 10 years. Where did the money go and was it spent as intended to support Canada's defence or siphoned off to consultants or admin?
Well, I'm furious and horrified that the buy is taking place at all, especially after I granted The Line my brilliant plan to just buy a bunch of their old A10 Warthogs and vow to provide all close-air support for NATO's future wars. Would have cost a small fraction, and been a better NATO contribution. All they had to do was read The Line, and read an objective article on the F35, and have some common sense.
But, we have to hand it to the government for at least giving us seven years of respite before the $19B waste began. It's a big financial win. Assuming 4% time-cost-of-money, a delay of 7 years reduces the NPV down to 0.96^7 = 0.75, saving one-quarter of the Net Present Value of the planned expenditure, that's nearly 5 billion dollars!
Of course, the price we had to pay was 7 more years of being defended by unused F18s instead of unused F35s. I think we bought a few of those for a billion or so. Let's call the saving only $4B. Still a huge win. I'm actually underselling the win, though, because the operational/maintenance costs on the F35s would have been much higher than for F18s, so we avoided seven years of that wallet-hoovering as well.
And exactly what do we need these planes for? (The same applies to submarines and frigates). The lobbyists calling for more spending on military hardware never really say, it seems to me. Clearly it's not for defending our national territory, so where will they be used and for what? For example, what use were the frigates built in the 1980s that are now being replaced at eye watering expense, but to the great profit of the Irving shipyard in Halifax?