On a more serious note I do think that the Typhoon and above all Rafale supporters would be wise not to foster too much hope in a Canadian sale.

Here are the reasons coming to my mind (feel free to add more to the list):

• History – Canadians have been very loyal so far to their southern cousins when it comes to the procurement of sensitive weapons.
• Business ties – The Canadian industry is closely tied to its US partners, especially for the F-35 as not only industry but also politics are at stake.
• Politics – The US cannot afford one of its closest allies to turn to the competition in a times where the cornerstone of the American arms portfolio raises ever increasing criticism. If the Canadians end up turning their back to the F-35 then I bet they will not double the blow by buying a non-US jet.
• Diplomacy – Probably dwarfed by its neighbour, Canada does not seem to have the political will to maintain a worldwide diplomacy despite the quality of its people and resources. This “punch-below-my-head” policy probably keeps the governments away from exploring opportunities beyond their closest ally.
• Competition – Dassault is one of Bombardier’s main competitors in the bizjet market. I am not sure that the Canadian industry would welcome such gratuitous publicity – one possible reason why it rarely gets mentioned in the Canadian press.

And

“As a F-35 program member it has always had up to date, and full and complete information on all aspects of the program.”

And, no doubt, as accurate as the information given to Bob Gates in the 2008-10 timeframe.

Bob Gates had his own credibility issues regarding evidence over the years…..

I don’t think anyone has suggested that a failure by Canada to order the F-35 would signal the end of the F-35. If the KPMG cost assessment is extremely high then it would suggest to Denmark and the Netherlands that F-35 risks being so expensive that it cannot be afforded. I suspect that when they look into cost themselves they will confirm that.

But what is the Canadian government reacting to?

As a F-35 program member it has always had up to date, and full and complete information on all aspects of the program. As a NATO member it has always had access to information on competing aircraft. Nothing’s changed there.

What has changed is an Auditor General’s report that has made it politically difficult for the Canadian government not to “review” its decision process.

Congratulations to Canada for exercising responsible governance, albeit under duress. Still, if only the same could be said of Australia. =/

I don’t see it as being that simple. The NH-90 and Tiger were both procured by the ADF after an open tender. In both cases, what has been delivered is not what was promised by the wining bidder in their tender. In the case of the Tiger, not only has the program yet to deliver the promised capability, operating costs are said to be close to double what was advised by the vendor at the time of the tender in their bid. So how would an open tender add to the analysis undertaken by the DoD prior to the selection of the F-35?

Meanwhile, direct source contracts for the F-18F and C-17 have delivered capabilities that have worked as advertised, with no surprises.

It will be interesting to see what type of “review” Canada does undertake.

Of course if the United States descends into fascism and embarks on a massive rearmaments program at the expense of all other priorities, North Korea-style, then any number of F-35s are possible. I guess folks are right — one should keep an open mind about these things. /shrug

LOL. Sometimes you sound like a political science major who went to one too many lectures given by some crusty old ex-hippie academic who is still living in his own personal glory days of the early 1970s…….. 😀

The European countries will have no choice but to switch over to a more affordable fighter jet, which puts the F-35 in a death spiral.

You are really overestimating how critical sales to European partners are for the F-35. The USAF alone plans to buy 1,763 As http://news.yahoo.com/u-air-force-sticking-plans-buy-1-763-011218618–finance.html , add to that planned purchases by the USN (260 Cs ) and marine corps (340 Bs and 80 Cs ), along with purchases by non European air forces (Aus 100, Canada 65, Japan initially 42, with Singapore also likely to buy).

The 2008 levels of 1.5-1.6 were pretty abnormal even for my taste.

You can see a “normal” rate in that? 😮

The Canadian controversy stems from the F-35’s cost, which affects everyone else, especially in Europe where the national governments are trying to cut defense spending and demilitarize in order to deal with ongoing European government debt crisis.

Every major defence procurement in western democracies is questioned, reviewed, and challenged in the political arena by those seeking to score points, or progress a different political agenda…. Its pretty naive to assume that had Canada selected SH or Typhoon for example, that there would be no questioning of that purchase. You also have to remember that even the fiercest critics of a purchase can change their minds radically when they find themselves in government and have to make real decisions with real consequences.

The politics around Aus purchase of the F-18F is an abundantly clear example. The current defence minister, when in opposition, was highly critical of the purchase; now in government he’s looking at the potential purchase of additional aircraft 😎

OK Europe is broke and its currency has lost a LOT of value, but frankly that’s Europe’s problem.