RE:RE:RE:Buying the F-18 rather than the F-35Fair reply, gobomber. Thank you for your service. I defer to your experience and thank you for causing me to reconsider my long-held position.
On review it appears that the Liberals politicized the issue making it difficult for them to complete the plans of the previous government. But the economic conditions left behind by the Conservative regime also contributed to the lack of public support for the contract. It would have been better for the Conservatives to suspend the order so that the Liberals would have to take responsibility for revising or cancelling it. So far, to my mind, Justin has done better in taking the time to consider policies rather than acting fast to reverse Harper's decisions.
What do you think of Glasshalfful's suggestion that procurement should be at arms length from parliament itself? Approve budgets for long term, but let DND determine why, for what, when and how such funds are spent? Like a Crown Corporation? But with such power there would be a higher risk of corruption. Perhaps I watch too many movies with variations on that theme.
gobomber wrote: ChaseYourDream,
To your point: Respectfully, the Mulroney governemnt made the first Helicopter contract commitment mere months (weeks?) before being thrown out of office... down to 2 seats! against the recommendation of multiple opposition parties. It may well have been a trick designed to primot the liberals to say they woudl cancel it and then get stuck with the consequences.
I was a mebmer of the CAF for 35 years before retiring as a senior officer and then continued as a consultant and public servant for another 15 years. I do not have to tell you I am not a Spring chicken anymore.
Having worked in procurement of military eqipment as a project manager for 25 years total, I am well aware of how the procurement process works and how long it takes. By the time a requirement is identified (the need to procure or replace a capability) and contract award it usually takes four to five years. Hence for a new Governement to start the procurement process shortly after being elected, it usually means that the contract will be awarded shortly before a new election is due.
Second. the government does not work and does not make decision on the basis that they will lose the next election.
Lastly, contrary to the US we do not have a lame duck period where the Government has to delay all decisions after the next election.
You said: I am trying to refrain from speaking about chronic procurement failures of the last 10 years leaving the navy in particular at the lowest capability in my lifetime. While governing through the last bubble of a doomed era.
This is true but there is a limited pot of money and in the last 10 years the role of the Navy has been rather small as compared to the Army and the Air Forces. While the Navy was patrolling in the Golf of Somalia, the Army and the Air Forces were fighting real wars and some of our soldier died in the process. The limited funds DND had were spent where the need was to most urgent
As to your last point: Attempts to link this issue to the Fed's attitude toward Bombardier is laughable. About as logical as saying "I don't like cheese so let's boycott GM".... or, "these shoes hurt so I will never eat pork again!"
I assume you were not talking about my post as I never mentionned Bombardier and it is a stretch to link the procurement of the F-18 with the Federal Government investment in Bombardier.