The Canadian government has put forward a response to a previous Auditor General effort on the countries proposed CF-18 fighter replacement.
This response is basically useless for the following reasons:
-It mentions a 2009 U.S. select acquisition report about the F-35 but does not mention the latest one which is even more troublesome. This includes the fact that the latest SAR has separated costing of the airframe and motor.
-There is no direct reference on flying hour assumptions per year for each aircraft. For example with current ops budgets, Canada might be able to afford flying 30 or so F-35s per year. And that is generous because it allows for a fleet of non-faulty aircraft.
-There is no mention of a severe 2011 report by the U.S. about F-35 engineering difficulty.
-Throughout the response one gets the impression that few, if any, Canadian government decision-makers have any grasp of F-35 risks.
There is more, but in the end, not much has changed. Canada's CF-18 replacement is still in trouble. No one of any credible skill can put forward a reason why the nation should embark on a high risk project to replace current aircraft with faulty aircraft.