Canada pulls plug on F35?
Thread Starter
Canada pulls plug on F35?
Just breaking now.
Not sure how accurate... contradictory media reports.
The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.
Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.
This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.
The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is not a member of the cabinet operations committee. It remains unclear whether he was present at the meeting Tuesday. However, MacKay is a member of the cabinet Priorities and Planning committee, which is to discuss the F-35 decision Friday morning.
The F-18s currently flown by the RCAF are at the tail end of their life cycle and are not expected to be operable much beyond 2020, at the outside.
The fighter procurement process has been the responsibility of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose since last spring, following Ferguson’s audit. It is understood that veteran senior bureaucrat Tom Ring, who handled the government’s much-praised ship-building contract process in the fall of 2011, is now steering the reframed fighter replacement process, from within Public Works.
Last spring, Auditor-General Michael 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.
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30-billion over a 30-year life cycle.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signaling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”
Gen. Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons Defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said; the F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked. Lawson’s answer: “No.”
The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.
Also in the mix, former Industry Minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.
Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet.
Further updated from CBC
The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.
The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.
That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.
Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it.
CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported.
The cost of the F-35 project was first pegged at $9 billion when for 65 planes when it was announced by the government more than two years ago, but successive reports by the parliamentary budget officer and federal auditor general put the total cost to buy and maintain the planes at $25 billion or more.
Public Works took over the process for procuring a CF-18 replacement earlier this year.
The government has long maintained the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's needs. But last week, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, told MPs that there are other planes with stealth capabilities.
Not sure how accurate... contradictory media reports.
The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.
Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.
This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.
The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is not a member of the cabinet operations committee. It remains unclear whether he was present at the meeting Tuesday. However, MacKay is a member of the cabinet Priorities and Planning committee, which is to discuss the F-35 decision Friday morning.
The F-18s currently flown by the RCAF are at the tail end of their life cycle and are not expected to be operable much beyond 2020, at the outside.
The fighter procurement process has been the responsibility of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose since last spring, following Ferguson’s audit. It is understood that veteran senior bureaucrat Tom Ring, who handled the government’s much-praised ship-building contract process in the fall of 2011, is now steering the reframed fighter replacement process, from within Public Works.
Last spring, Auditor-General Michael 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.
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30-billion over a 30-year life cycle.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signaling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”
Gen. Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons Defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said; the F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked. Lawson’s answer: “No.”
The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.
Also in the mix, former Industry Minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.
Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet.
Further updated from CBC
The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.
The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.
That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.
Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it.
CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported.
The cost of the F-35 project was first pegged at $9 billion when for 65 planes when it was announced by the government more than two years ago, but successive reports by the parliamentary budget officer and federal auditor general put the total cost to buy and maintain the planes at $25 billion or more.
Public Works took over the process for procuring a CF-18 replacement earlier this year.
The government has long maintained the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's needs. But last week, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, told MPs that there are other planes with stealth capabilities.
Last edited by tartare; 7th Dec 2012 at 04:23.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right here
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Cancelled Yet, says Harper office
The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.
The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.
That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.
Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it.
CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported.
The cost of the F-35 project was first pegged at $9 billion for 65 planes when it was announced by the government more than two years ago, but successive reports by the parliamentary budget officer and federal auditor general put the total cost to buy and maintain the planes at $25 billion or more.
Public Works took over the process for procuring a CF-18 replacement earlier this year.
A statement from the office of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said that the government will be providing "a comprehensive public update" before the House rises.
"We are committed to completing the seven point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft," the statement from Ambrose's office said.
The government has long maintained the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's needs. But last week, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, told MPs that there are other planes with stealth capabilities.
The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.
That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.
Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it.
CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported.
The cost of the F-35 project was first pegged at $9 billion for 65 planes when it was announced by the government more than two years ago, but successive reports by the parliamentary budget officer and federal auditor general put the total cost to buy and maintain the planes at $25 billion or more.
Public Works took over the process for procuring a CF-18 replacement earlier this year.
A statement from the office of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said that the government will be providing "a comprehensive public update" before the House rises.
"We are committed to completing the seven point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft," the statement from Ambrose's office said.
The government has long maintained the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's needs. But last week, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, told MPs that there are other planes with stealth capabilities.
A CTV report from last night now says the cost of buying and maintaining the F-35 will be established at $40B over its lifespan.
I'm not against the Canadian Air Force replacing their ageing F-18 with something newer, more modern and better performing but I do not think we need to get a "stealthy" top of the line aircraft. And why would/should we get a single engine aircraft when we know how big and unforgiving our territory is?
One of the major reasons the F-18 won over its main rival, the F-16 back in 1980 was the fact that the F-16 was a single engine aircraft and the F-18 a twin engine aircraft and I quote... "two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)."
If it was good then why isn’t good today? Why would we want to change that logic just for the sake of a new aircraft?
The Canadian Air Force's role does not require the latest and greatest and I think that the newer and more modern and better performing Super Hornet would do just fine for our country. This aircraft is a known system, already operational and not under development so cost of purchase and maintenance are already available and a known factor and not a guessing game.
The other factor tha't got me worried about the F-35 aside from an unknown over all cost factor is it's longivity and how many aircrafts are going to be left in the fleet after lets say 25 years?
If we look historically at the F-18 program, it cost us to procure this platform $4B ($2.4B was the original cost estimate) for 138 aircrafts that were delivered between 1982 and 1988.
Today we have only 79 F-18s that still remain operational. So over a 24 to 30 year period the attrition of this platform was of 59 aircrafts or approximately 43% of the fleet through crashes, accidents and moth balling because the airframes were simply over used.
Apply those numbers to the F-35 platform and in 25 years down the line a 43% attrition rate would leave us with only 37 aircrafts in our fleet! That would make for a great Air Force with the second largest country to cover I don’t know how a 37 aircraft fleet would manage that.
In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).
For the same amount of dollars spent on the F-35 (at today’s estimated cost) we could buy between 162 and 226 F-18s and that would be a hell of a lot better than the 65 proposed F-35s.
I'm not against the Canadian Air Force replacing their ageing F-18 with something newer, more modern and better performing but I do not think we need to get a "stealthy" top of the line aircraft. And why would/should we get a single engine aircraft when we know how big and unforgiving our territory is?
One of the major reasons the F-18 won over its main rival, the F-16 back in 1980 was the fact that the F-16 was a single engine aircraft and the F-18 a twin engine aircraft and I quote... "two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)."
If it was good then why isn’t good today? Why would we want to change that logic just for the sake of a new aircraft?
The Canadian Air Force's role does not require the latest and greatest and I think that the newer and more modern and better performing Super Hornet would do just fine for our country. This aircraft is a known system, already operational and not under development so cost of purchase and maintenance are already available and a known factor and not a guessing game.
The other factor tha't got me worried about the F-35 aside from an unknown over all cost factor is it's longivity and how many aircrafts are going to be left in the fleet after lets say 25 years?
If we look historically at the F-18 program, it cost us to procure this platform $4B ($2.4B was the original cost estimate) for 138 aircrafts that were delivered between 1982 and 1988.
Today we have only 79 F-18s that still remain operational. So over a 24 to 30 year period the attrition of this platform was of 59 aircrafts or approximately 43% of the fleet through crashes, accidents and moth balling because the airframes were simply over used.
Apply those numbers to the F-35 platform and in 25 years down the line a 43% attrition rate would leave us with only 37 aircrafts in our fleet! That would make for a great Air Force with the second largest country to cover I don’t know how a 37 aircraft fleet would manage that.
In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).
For the same amount of dollars spent on the F-35 (at today’s estimated cost) we could buy between 162 and 226 F-18s and that would be a hell of a lot better than the 65 proposed F-35s.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right here
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent points. The Super Hornet would do the job nicely, and I've heard stories of Boeing offering a really good deal for them. Let's hope the political Mandarins show some common sense now.
Super Hornet seems a good idea, given it has gone through its growing pains and Canada may not have the deep attack requirements that other of our allies have.
If you put up a good AEW platform and use BVR capabilities, Super Hornets look to be a fine choice and affordable.
Sorry to see the F-35 run into yet another hurdle, but I don't blame our friends up north for looking at the dollars and cents and deciding that they can't afford the new sports car.
If you put up a good AEW platform and use BVR capabilities, Super Hornets look to be a fine choice and affordable.
Sorry to see the F-35 run into yet another hurdle, but I don't blame our friends up north for looking at the dollars and cents and deciding that they can't afford the new sports car.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow H.
errrr. who exactly needs these deep attack capabilities ..............
In that regard, all you can do is be ready as best you can for the next challenge. An aircraft such as the F-35 takes a long time and a lot of cash to develop. You could be involved a couple of wars in the time it takes to develop and field such an aircraft.
To my fighter pilot eye, the F-35 looks like a target and not a fighter, but what do I know? I'm well away from operational flying now.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 45
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Can't afford the new sports car"
Canada can't afford the new sports car? Neither can even the UK. Nevermind that, the US can't even afford to make terrible investments, which is what JSF is. Although the JSF program has advanced some technologies (like stealthy aircraft skin), in terms of the capability return that JSF will be able to deliver, the US investment has been far from the best return possible. The cost per (generic) unit of capability effectiveness for air superiority is high - this is no air superiority fighter. So that leaves the air to ground game - and it is being argued strongly that there are important shortfalls in JSFs stealthiness from the lower aspects, which is a prime consideration in penetrating missions. So how can even the US afford such a huge investment for a platform that will be mediocre at everything and ground-breaking at none? And as concerns the third role of the JSF triad of roles/capabilities, non-traditional ISR (an abused and misused term), the premise that for non-traditional ISR missions and "fusion" (another terribly misunderstood concept within the JSF discourse) a single seat a/c might in the next few years be the best way to do what JSFs proponents suggest it will be able to do is faulty at it's foundation. There are some significant weaknesses in the JSF concept and it's embodiment. The folks responsible for the JORD got it wrong, and no one in any position of authority has mustered the courage to call this baby ugly.
Last edited by P3Driver; 10th Dec 2012 at 03:16.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Jockey A4, In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).
Lockheed Sees 'Great Progress' On F-35 Fighter
“This program is making great progress and it really has a lot of momentum,” Kubasik told reporters on Wednesday during a discussion about Lockheed’s third-quarter earnings.
He said labor costs were coming down faster on the F-35 program than any previous fighter jet program in over 40 years. Lockheed is on track to hit its target unit “flyaway” cost, excluding development, of $67 million in fiscal 2012 dollars by 2018
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...-3-29-2012.pdf
2011/12 SAR has the by2012 FRP at $73m 2018 it's a pretty safe bet that it will be between those 2 numbers
This is the 7 point plan, that the article is based on and misreported
DND/CF | Statement | Government of Canada announces comprehensive response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada
Last edited by JSFfan; 9th Dec 2012 at 05:07.
We are at act 5 of the Kabuki theater that is Canada's politically driven decision to buy the F 35.
The latest estimate is 40 Billion to buy and operate the airplane over the next 30 years. This would represent almost half of the total capital acquisition moneys available to the Army, Navy and Air Force for this time frame....all spent just to obtain tactical air effects.
Even the clueless Politicians are now being forced to acknowledge that Canada can't afford to buy this aircraft, and even the US is having sticker shock.
The latest estimate is 40 Billion to buy and operate the airplane over the next 30 years. This would represent almost half of the total capital acquisition moneys available to the Army, Navy and Air Force for this time frame....all spent just to obtain tactical air effects.
Even the clueless Politicians are now being forced to acknowledge that Canada can't afford to buy this aircraft, and even the US is having sticker shock.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And put the money saved into developing radar technology which will defeat the next stealth threat as will inevitably happen."
Didn't the stealth that got shot down do so by a smart cookie
that used existing technology used a different way ?
.
Didn't the stealth that got shot down do so by a smart cookie
that used existing technology used a different way ?
.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFventilator,
flyaway cost is irrelevant.
What matters is the amount of cache a gvt. needs to unload for the plane.
Japan payed over $510m in today's dollars for the 4 JSFs from 2017+, even if flyaway cost dropped to $73m in 2018.
flyaway cost is irrelevant.
What matters is the amount of cache a gvt. needs to unload for the plane.
Japan payed over $510m in today's dollars for the 4 JSFs from 2017+, even if flyaway cost dropped to $73m in 2018.
Last edited by NITRO104; 9th Dec 2012 at 08:13.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
With editorials like this, can the F-35 survive in Canada? As Ivison says in the linked article:
....As a result of the KPMG report, Canadians can at least have some confidence in the costs of the F-35 program. But its tabling in the House of Commons threatens to usher in a new phase where political manoeuvring will trump sensible public policy decisions. We have seen this movie before, when Jean Chrétien cancelled the AgustaWestland EH101 helicopters purchase made by Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives, paid a $500-million termination fee and rigged the subsequent contest to prevent AgustaWestland from winning.......
Andrew Coyne: F-35s debacle a broad failure of democratic accountability
....As a result of the KPMG report, Canadians can at least have some confidence in the costs of the F-35 program. But its tabling in the House of Commons threatens to usher in a new phase where political manoeuvring will trump sensible public policy decisions. We have seen this movie before, when Jean Chrétien cancelled the AgustaWestland EH101 helicopters purchase made by Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives, paid a $500-million termination fee and rigged the subsequent contest to prevent AgustaWestland from winning.......
Andrew Coyne: F-35s debacle a broad failure of democratic accountability
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nitro that is like saying australia bought the sh in 2010 urf $60m and has a $250m/6.6b cost over the 10 years we costed, it depends what you count. You will need to see the contract and what's included to put it in perspective.
the SAR TY 2018 cost for the partners is URF $83m, japan not being a partner will pay more and I'm guessing about $90m is the URF part of the $510m
the SAR TY 2018 cost for the partners is URF $83m, japan not being a partner will pay more and I'm guessing about $90m is the URF part of the $510m
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF...,
if some gvt. doesn't have $130m to pay for an F35 UPC, it's completely irrelevant whether its flyaway cost is $20m, $78m, or $100m.
if some gvt. doesn't have $130m to pay for an F35 UPC, it's completely irrelevant whether its flyaway cost is $20m, $78m, or $100m.
Last edited by NITRO104; 9th Dec 2012 at 11:18.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadian Government will hold a fair and open competition to determine that the preselected JSF the winner.
They have already decided to buy the JSF they just need to craft the open fair and transparent competition to get the correct answer.
They should ask Australia how they managed to dodge the hard questions on the JSF single source supplier deal.
They have already decided to buy the JSF they just need to craft the open fair and transparent competition to get the correct answer.
They should ask Australia how they managed to dodge the hard questions on the JSF single source supplier deal.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halfway up a Scottish mountain
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel 41,
It may stop JSFfan cluttering up more than one thread, but the fact that one of the nations is considering cancelling its order may get lost on the other thread. Perhaps this separate thread is the right place, as long as it sticks on topic.
It may stop JSFfan cluttering up more than one thread, but the fact that one of the nations is considering cancelling its order may get lost on the other thread. Perhaps this separate thread is the right place, as long as it sticks on topic.
