“BE HEARD! No Stealth Fighters!” . . . F-35s

[Oscar]

“No Stealth Fighters!”

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!

http://www.ceasefire.ca/
?p=10587&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ceasefire%2FycPl+%28Ceasefire.ca%29


Today is the day to join with thousands of other Canadians and be heard together demanding, “No stealth fighters!”

Please sign and email your letter to Stephen Harper on Ceasefire.ca:
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=10587

The Harper government is upset about opposition to the F-35 stealth fighters by the public, who are worried about cuts to pensions and social programs.

Other countries are pulling back from the F-35, and even the Pentagon has concerns. But Stephen Harper and his pro-war lobbyist friends at Lockheed Martin and the Conference of Defence Associations are still promoting this multi-billion-dollar F-35 fiasco.

Please sign and email your letter:
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=10587

Then, be sure to forward this email to your friends and family urging them to “Be Heard – No Stealth Fighters!”

Thanks for everything you do for peace.

Kathleen Walsh
Ceasefire.ca

P.S. Please sign and email your letter to Stephen Harper on Ceasefire.ca.

- - - - - -

Here is the text:

Prime Minister Harper

I am very concerned that your government spends more than $21 billion every year on the Department of National Defence, and plans to purchase a fleet of extremely expensive F-35 stealth fighters.

Instead, I urge you to cut wasteful military spending and the F-35s, and use our tax dollars to preserve our pensions and social programs, protect the environment, improve our health care and assist the world’s poorest.

Sincerely,

[Your name and address]

[Oscar]

MAY: RE: No Stealth Fighters

----- Original Message -----
From: Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: No Stealth Fighters [2453]

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the Harper Conservatives’ spending on National Defense and F-35 stealth fighter jets.

On July 16th of last year, Defense Minister Peter MacKay announced that the Canadian government planned to purchase 65 new F-35 fighter jets for a hefty price tag of $16 billion. Many Canadians responded to this announcement with disbelief and frustration at the government’s disregard for spending on priorities such as social programs and renewable energy. In addition, Canada has no plausible security scenario in which air-to-air combat is necessary, further confusing the true need for F-35 fighter jets.

Canada’s involvement with the F-35 fighter jets came long before these jets were developed or even tested. Under previous Liberal governments, Canada signed on as a junior partner in the development project of these planes. Canada’s involvement started with a $10 million ‘donation’ to ensure Canada’s status as an ‘informed partner.’ In 2002, we threw in an additional $150 million to qualify our industries to bid for contracts for plane components. Meanwhile, the costs of the F-35 jets has escalated and increased by over 50%, making them incredibly over-budget. As a result, Canada is spending money we don’t have on planes we don’t need.

As a Member of Parliament, I see this project as a lost opportunity to reduce poverty, create green jobs, protect health care and fight climate change. Rather than spend $16 billion on F-35s, we need money allocated to affordable housing programs, environmental science and assessment, renewable energy, affordable daycare, the extension of EI benefits, grants to post-secondary students, poverty reduction, a green manufacturing fund among many other initiatives to help Canadians. Also, to limit the amount of debt and move towards a sustainable economy. We do need a new aircraft, but they should be chosen through a competitive process and should focus on the needs for search and rescue, surveillance, and should be twin engine planes. In other words, we should only purchase jets that meet Canada’s needs.

To read more of my reaction to the government’s spending decisions, please read my article published in the Island Tides newspaper at

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publicati ... and-tides/
2010/08/05/why-is-canada-spending-16-billion-on-fighter-jets.

I will continue to raise this issue in the House of Commons. I also recommend that you continue to write Conservative MPs. As well, letters to the editors of local and national publications expressing your dissent will be effective in assuring protests against this waste of resources will succeed.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May O.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Island
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

[Oscar]

F-35s finally land a combat role – in Hollywood

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/
f-35s-finally-land-a-combat-role-in-hollywood/article2360165/

paul koring Washington— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2012 11:13AM EST

The F-35, the stealthy, deep-strike warplane, has finally landed a combat role – albeit in Hollywood.

Long-delayed and over-budget, the F-35 has been selected to star alongside Tom Cruise in a sequel of Top Gun, the 1980s flick in which fun-loving naval aviators conquered local girls and the Libyan air force. Mr. Cruise, who memorably played ‘Maverick,’ romancing his hot instructor and out-dueling Soviet-era warplanes in the first Top Gun, is back as a grizzled test pilot in the sequel. The movie’s F-35 will be a pre-production model. [ . . . ]


More related to this story (All Links are on original URL)

MacKay sticks to his guns – and his initial price tag – on F-35 jets
Tories weigh value of delaying F-35 jet purchase
Harper's fighter-jet project hits pricing turbulence

Video: Cancelling F-35 could ground air force: MacKay

Options
How the F-35 shapes up against unmanned drones

Earlier Discussion
Does Canada need next-generation stealth fighter jets?

[Oscar]

Government lacks credibility on F-35

http://www.ceasefire.ca/
?p=10545&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ceasefire%2FycPl+%28Ceasefire.ca%29

March 9, 2012

According to Postmedia News, the Department of National Defence has been monitoring media reactions to the planned purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter to replace Canada’s CF-18s, and from what they’ve been seeing, the government has not been winning the battle for hearts and minds (Lee Berthiaume, “Credibility of DND Spokespeople Undercut by Six Different Prices for the F-35, According to Newly Released Defence Department Report,” Ottawa Citizen Defence Watch, 29 February 2012)
[ http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/ ... nt-report/ ]:

The Defence Department has been tirelessly tracking what the media is writing about the jets.

The information, which includes blogs and Twitter, is compiled into reports delivered to senior officials every few weeks.

The reports include a breakdown of which journalists are writing about the stealth fighters, whether their stories are positive or negative, and whether the articles addressed the F-35′s performance, delivery schedule or price.

One report, from Oct. 17, 2011, notes that over the preceding 15 months, nearly 2,900 articles had been published on the F-35, the majority of which were critical of the purchase.

When asked about the stealth fighter in the House of Commons, the Conservative government has repeatedly highlighted the F-35′s expected capabilities. But the report notes the vast majority of the articles written about the jet aren’t about its performance, but its cost.

The report also notes that the government’s inability to produce a credible cost estimate for the F-35 purchase is undercutting its credibility on the overall F-35 issue:

“Adding to the criticism is confusion over how costs should be calculated, with multiple and conflicting estimates detracting from the credibility of official sources,” the report reads.

In fact, it adds, “the absence of a single, authoritative figure on estimated per-plane cost is leaving the field open to speculation, and detracting from the credibility of spokespeople on related issues such as (the F-35′s) performance.”

The report goes on to note that during the previous month, no less than six prices had been cited by different sources.

These included a $65-million figure from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, $75 million from the Canadian Defence Department, $103 million from the head of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment Office, $113 million from a U.S. congressional committee, $137 million from the Israeli military and $148 million from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page.

In recent weeks the government has backed away from providing a per-plane cost figure, claiming only that the overall purchase cost of whatever number of F-35s is eventually bought will not exceed the $9 billion budgeted for the program (maintenance and operations costs excluded).

[Oscar]

Auditor General condemns F-35 process

http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=11179

April 3, 2012

Auditor General Michael Ferguson issued a scathing indictment of the Harper government’s F-35 procurement process in his first report, released on April 3rd.

[ REPORT:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/
parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html ]

2.80 National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the process to replace the CF-18 jets. National Defence did not appropriately consult Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on the procurement implications of the 2006 MOU for the third phase of the JSF Program or develop an appropriate plan for managing the unique aspects of the acquisition. Problems relating to development of the F-35 were not fully communicated to decision makers, and risks presented to decision makers did not reflect the problems the JSF Program was experiencing at the time. Full life-cycle costs were understated in the estimates provided to support the government’s 2010 decision to buy the F-35. Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians. There was a lack of timely and complete documentation to support the procurement strategy decision.


2.81 PWGSC did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the government’s procurement authority. Although it was not engaged by National Defence until late in the decision-making process, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the sole-source procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.

MORE:
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=11179


SIGN PETITION HERE:

http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=10587