Harper Government Scraps F-35 Purchase...

[Moon The Loon]

Interesting comment posted to this article:

http://fullcomment.n...-in-new-report/

on national post.com (italics and bold mine):

"The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion.

But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s.

people need to understand that the acquisition costs of 8.9 billion is what we're REALLY talking about. the sustainment costs will be similar with ANY new fighter acquisition and the operating costs will be in the same ballpark too.

if you want to have a conversation about whether we SHOULD have advanced fighters, or which ones are the best fit for our requirements, go to it. i welcome that conversation, but the F35 program and it's proponents are being railroaded."

Makes sense, but newspapers and the public respond to COSTS not RULES & COMMON SENSE. So for this "story" over a year ago, COSTS grabbed everybody's attention, not the fact it was not tendered, not the fact that it couldn't operate in remote areas unsupported by a rather large infrastructure, not the fact that it could not land on short or gravel runways, not the fact that it has only ONE engine. Just costs.

So in my opinion, the media focused on just that.

And here we are today!

[Fido]

.

people need to understand that the acquisition costs of 8.9 billion is what we're REALLY talking about. the sustainment costs will be similar with ANY new fighter acquisition and the operating costs will be in the same ballpark too.

The public is NOT well served by the media or the opposition politicians and they are closely followed by the Air Force colonels and generals that asked for this aircraft.

Changing the term of the calculation is BS. Much the same as quoting an hourly cost for an aircraft to transport something (anything) across the country and including military salaries as part of the cost, which would be paid regardless.

[av8tor]

An interesting project at Boeing. I wonder if this "directed energy" weapon could be used against fighter aircraft electronics, defeating their electrical and data systems and rendering the aircraft impotent.

http://video.boeing....d=1913200772001

[Kip Powick]

TORSTAR Wednesday 12 Dec 2012

OTTAWA—More than two years after pledging to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, the Conservative government is ditching that decision and starting from scratch.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Defence Minister Peter MacKay will announce Wednesday afternoon that Ottawa is going back to the drawing board in its search for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornets, according to a source familiar with the announcement.

As well, they are expected to release a study by the accounting firm KPMG showing that the cost of acquiring the fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs was projected to be more than $40 billion over 42 years.

That sticker shock — and problems in the ongoing development of the F-35 — are forcing the Conservative government to finally abandon the fighter they have been stubbornly defending against mounting criticism.

They plan to ditch plans for a sole-source contract and look at other fighters on the market.

And in a bid to quell criticism, officials will take a page from their successful process in 2011 to issue $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts — a decision that stirred little criticism or controversy.

That process will involve consulting with the potential bidders, a independent third-party review and a high-level steering group within government.

Still, it marks a dramatic climb down for the Tories, who have outspoken in their defence of the F-35 and sharply critical of opposition MPs who expressed doubts, despite growing evidence that the jet’s development was getting bogged down and costs were rising.

It’s also a sharp U-turn from July, 2010, when MacKay, Ambrose and then Industry Minister Tony Clement announced Canada’s plans to buy 65 F-35s.

The announcement was done at elaborately staged news conference in Ottawa, featuring a full-sized mock-up of an F-35 alongside an CF-18 flown in for event.

At the time, MacKay declared the F-35 was the only fighter that fit the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

“The F-35’s technological leaps — in terms of sensors, stealth technology, weapons systems, survivability and the integrated nature of its systems — make it a truly fifth generation aircraft,” MacKay said at the time.

“And it is the only fighter to meet the Canadian Forces’ operational and interoperability needs,” he said.

Just weeks later, MacKay flew to the air base in Bagotville, Que., to announce that 24 of the sophisticated fighters would be based there. Another 24 would be stationed at CFB Cold Lake with the remaining 17 to be used for training at a location to be announced later

[DEFCON]

And what of all the taxpayer money that's being spent by technically blind politicians who are without a doubt, finding many ways to personally 'enrich' themselves throughout these seemingly never-ending processes?

[Seeker]

No cheap alternative says John Ivison:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

"In September, the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period.

We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each."

[Kip Powick]

U.S. military grounds F-35 fighter jets

The Pentagon's most expensive weapons system is going to spend some time on the bench.

The U.S. military on Friday grounded the F-35 fighter jet due to a crack in an engine component that was discovered during a routine inspection in California. The fighter is currently being tested.

The Pentagon said in a statement that it was too early to assess the impact on the nearly $400 billion fleet of jets designed for use by the Navy, Air Force and Marines.

The program has been beset by cost overruns and various technical problems during development.

Currently, there 51 planes in the F-35 fleet

[boestar]

Canada has been flying F18 since the beginning. WE know the aircraft (pilots and engineers) and we are already outfitted to operate them. yes the super hornet is technically a different airframe (larger) it still has alot of commonality with its predecessor. That in itself will lower operating and startup costs because training technicians will take less time. Pilots always need the same amount of training no matter what...

[boestar]

and why do we need stealth? Does Canada not have one of the lowest combat casualty rates among the worlds Air Forces already?

[Maverick]

A little more in-depth look at the super hornet.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+National/Canada/ID/2339344612/

[mrlupin]

The F35 program is so widely distrubuted throughout the US states that it is politically uncancellable... Also of interest is the part of the article where they threaten to pull work out of Canada if the government cancels the purchase.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html

Flawed F-35 Fighter Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States

By Kathleen Miller, Tony Capaccio and Danielle Ivory - Feb 22, 2013

The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and U.S. allies.

Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it’s the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.

• GRAPHIC: No Program Left Behind
• PART 1 OF SERIES: Pentagon Budget Stuck in Last Century as Warfare Changes
• PART 1 GRAPHIC: Defense Budget at Center of Spending War
• PART 2 OF SERIES: Defense-Cut Hypocrisy Makes GOP Converge With Democrats
• PART 2 GRAPHIC: Defense Cuts Elusive as Lawmakers Protect Local Projects
• PART 3 OF SERIES: Ships Leaking $37 Billion Show Eisenhower Military Complex Alarm
• PART 3 GRAPHIC: A Rough Start for Navy's Newest Vessel
• SLIDESHOW: Ten Giant Weapons in the Pentagon's Shrinking Budget

It is also the defense project too big to kill. The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. The F-35 is an example of how large weapons programs can plow ahead amid questions about their strategic necessity and their failure to arrive on time and on budget.

“It’s got a lot of political protection,” said Winslow Wheeler, a director at the Project on Government Oversight’s Center for Defense Information in Washington. “In that environment, very, very few members of Congress are willing to say this is an unaffordable dog and we need to get rid of it.”

The Pentagon said today it suspended all F-35 flights after a routine engine inspection of a test aircraft revealed a crack on a turbine blade. The jet is also facing scrutiny as the March 1 deadline to avert automatic U.S. budget cuts approaches. The across-the-board reductions would take as much as $45 billion this year from defense programs, including the F-35.

Greatest Exposure

Among the contractors, Lockheed has the greatest exposure to the F-35, said Richard Aboulafia, a military analyst with Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal Group. The program made up 13 percent of the company’s $46.5 billion in revenue in 2011, according to a regulatory filing.

“Unlike much of their subcontractor base, they have no commercial market” to protect against hits to the F-35, Aboulafia said in a phone interview.

United Technologies Corp. (UTX), which supplies the engine, has more diversity than Lockheed, he said. Northrop, another key F-35 contractor, has a hedge because it builds 40 percent of Boeing Co. (BA)’s F/A-18E/F jet, which benefits if the F-35 gets cut, Aboulafia said.

About 5 percent of Northrop’s $26.5 billion in new contract awards in 2012 were tied to the F-35, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Supersonic Jet

The supersonic F-35 was intended to transform military aviation. Three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps would be built off a common assembly line, permitting faster production, reduced costs and compatibility among allied air forces.

About a quarter of the aircraft would be purchased by other countries. Norway, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S. agreed in 2006 to cooperatively produce and sustain the F-35 jet. Israel and Japan later signed on to purchase jets and take part in their development.

Export Fighter

The F-35 will probably become the dominant export fighter for the U.S. aerospace industry, Gordon Adams, who served as the senior White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets under President Bill Clinton, said in a phone interview.

“This is the last U.S. export fighter standing, and that has saved this program,” said Adams, now a foreign-policy professor at American University in Washington. “There is a huge economic element to the F-35.”

Members of Congress are hesitant to make deep cuts to the project in part because it generates work in their states, Wheeler said. The F-35 supports 41,000 jobs in Texas alone, the most of any state, according to Lockheed’s website. The company assembles the fighter in Fort Worth.

Even Senator John McCain, who has been a critic of the fighter, toned down his rhetoric to welcome a squadron of the Marine Corps’ F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing jets to his home state of Arizona in November.

‘Right Direction’

McCain said he was encouraged the program was “moving in the right direction” after years of setbacks. The jet “may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world,” he said at a ceremony at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma.

The Republican senator had described the F-35’s ballooning costs and delays as “disgraceful,” “outrageous” and a “tragedy.”

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain, said the senator didn’t request that the planes be located at the base and “continues to be seriously concerned about potential cost- growth and schedule-slips in the program.” Still, Rogers said in an e-mail that McCain “is a staunch advocate of the unmatched training resources and decades-long community support that Arizona provides this vital mission.”

The co-chairmen of President Barack Obama’s deficit- reduction panel, former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, recommended in 2010 that Air Force and Navy purchases be reduced. They also suggested the Pentagon cancel the Marines’ F-35, the most complex of the three models.

‘Acquisition Malpractice’

That aircraft is “worth killing, particularly given its technical problems,” said Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Stimson Center, a nonprofit public-policy institute in Washington. The Marines’ AV-8B Harrier is “quite capable for now,” he said.

Blechman questioned the need for all F-35 models, saying they provide marginal improvement over existing F-16 jets “but nothing compared with the amount the Pentagon is planning to invest.” The Air Force is buying its version to replace F-16s. The F-35 will also replace the Air Force A-10 ground attack aircraft and older Navy F-18s.

The program’s woes have been blamed partly on how it was conceived -- with the notion that small numbers of aircraft could be produced during development and testing.

“Putting the F-35 into production years before the first flight test was acquisition malpractice,” Frank Kendall, then acting acquisition undersecretary, said in February 2012. He is now undersecretary for acquisition.

‘Exceeding Expectations’

Thomas Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the F-35, said the program has made “very significant strides over the last three years.” Structural and flight tests have improved, and the Bethesda, Maryland-based company delivered 30 aircraft last year compared with 13 in 2011, he said.

Lockheed intends to deliver 36 to the Defense Department this year, said Laura Siebert, a spokeswoman.

“The jet has flown to every corner of the envelope and it’s meeting or exceeding expectations in performance,” Siebert said in an e-mail. “With any test program of this size and complexity, normal discoveries will be made.”

Even so, the F-35 remains in development, and tests that would allow the plane to go into full production aren’t scheduled to be completed until 2019, seven years later than planned, Pentagon data shows.

On Probation

The total cost of the U.S. military’s 2,443 aircraft is now estimated at $395.7 billion, up from $233 billion in 2001 in current dollars, according to a Pentagon report.

“In between those two numbers is, of course, 12 years and an awful lot of learning,” said Michael Sullivan of the Government Accountability Office.

“They began the program before they understood the requirements,” Sullivan, director of acquisition management, said in a phone interview. “They failed to do a lot of systems engineering early. They didn’t understand their technologies.”

The program’s life-cycle cost, which includes development and 55 years of support, is projected to top $1.5 trillion, according to the latest Pentagon estimates.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates instilled some discipline in 2010 when he fired the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager and withheld from Lockheed $614 million in fees. Gates put the Marines’ version on “probation” in 2011 because of glitches in the jet’s propulsion system. His successor, Leon Panetta, released it from probation a year later. Both secretaries postponed jet orders in their budgets, citing the need for more testing.

Sticker Shock

Overseas, the Pentagon’s partners are balancing concerns about the F-35’s cost with the amount of work sent to their companies.

Allies have agreed to purchase 721 fighters, yet the soaring price is painful for nations with shrinking defense budgets. The estimated cost of each plane has about doubled to $137 million since 2001, according to a GAO report last year.

All the original nations “remain important partners on the program, and five of the eight have placed initial orders,” Lockheed’s Burbage said. Italy, Canada and Denmark, however, have scaled back their planned purchases.

Italy announced last year it would reduce its initial goal of buying 131 jets to 90.

The F-35 has emerged as a campaign issue in the race to replace Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti after a center-left candidate, whose coalition leads in all opinion polls, said the next administration should continue to cut planned F-35 orders.

Canada Reconsiders

Canada had dropped to 65 planes from 80. In December, it said it was reconsidering its commitment to purchase any of the jets after a consultant said the price to buy and maintain them might reach about $45 billion.

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though. A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business -- and jobs -- if it didn’t buy planes.

“If Canada did pull out of the program, all remaining aspects, including industrial participation, connected to the program would most likely be reviewed,” Michael Rein wrote in a Dec. 17 e-mail to Bloomberg Government.

Japan, which will increase its defense budget for the first time in 11 years, isn’t likely to change its plan to buy 42 planes, said Chiaki Akimoto, a military expert with the Royal United Services Institute in Japan. It may even order hundreds more F-35 jets when it starts retiring its fleets of F-2 and F-15 planes, he said.

‘Backbone’ Aircraft

The partners’ commitments should make the U.S. wary of making deep cuts to the F-35 program, said Dov Zakheim, a former defense comptroller who served under President George W. Bush.

“This program was advertised as a major collaborative program with a lot of allies,” Zakheim said in a phone interview. “It was sold to our allies as such. What do we do now -- pull the rug out from under them at the same time we’re complaining they aren’t spending enough on defense?”

The new fighter is the “backbone of our tactical aircraft plans,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in an interview. “The issue with F-35 is not whether it will work. The real question that we have been wrestling with now as we pass through the development phase is how to reduce costs.”

The Pentagon may have provided some protection to the F-35 by awarding Lockheed $4.87 billion in contracts related to the program on Dec. 28, just days before the first deadline to avert automatic cuts. The reductions were delayed for two months in a last-minute deal. If they kick in, defense officials have warned that as many as four of the requested 29 aircraft wouldn’t get funded this year.

Eliminating the entire program is unlikely, said Adams, the professor.

“It is always hardest to kill a program when it is already in production and the services have decided it is truly important to finish it,” he said. “Crib death is easier, when it’s in R&D.”

(This is the last of a four-part Bloomberg series examining Pentagon weapons spending. Part One reported on the mismatch between anticipated wars and the hardware bought to fight them. Part Two showed how members of Congress, regardless of party, protect even unwanted programs to save hometown jobs. Part Three reported on a troubled Navy ship.)

[conehead]

Australia moves closer to Super Hornets purchase

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-moves-closer-to-super-hornets-purchase-382922/

[Bryon Mask]

My son is on exchange with the U.S. Navy as a Super Hornet instructor. He loves the airplane. As a performer it is heavier than the CF-18 but has more powerful engines and the combination of internal tanks and one centerline tank equals the CF-18 fuel load with 3 external tanks. It also has 2 extra pylon mounts for weapons and can be fitted with a fuel pod which gives it the capability to act as an air to air refueler. It has larger elevators and flaps which allows it to fly a lower approach speed than the regular hornet. I can't remember the exact number but somewhere in the 10-15 knot range. Cockpit displays are almost identical. It does have an exceptional radar platform. I got to fly the simulator and it is quite a performer.

My only comment about the CBC video above is the simulator display they are demonstrating is not what the Super Hornet cockpit looks like. As I said it ia almost identical to the regular Hornet.

[Junior]

On 12/8/2012 at 8:04 AM, deicer said:

Congrats to the Harper Regime!

They carried on about how the Libs messed up the helicopter purchase, now they've show us once again they know how to do it better

With all associated costs eventually, care to wager the over/under on the final price?

Looks like the frauds are exposed again.

After all their campaigning about how terrible Harper was for choosing the F-35, and putting us through years of this, we will be getting the F-35.

 

 

[Jaydee]

Liberals launch negotiations to buy F-35 fighter jets

The Canadian government has chosen the F-35 as its preferred replacement for the air force's four-decade-old CF-18 fighters and will open negotiations with the stealth jet's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.

Public Services and Procurement Minister Filomena Tassi and Defence Minister Anita Anand made the announcement Monday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-negotiations-1.6399978

[GDR]

Interesting article on the decision on CTV

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/questions-swirl-as-canada-launches-negotiations-for-f-35-stealth-fighter-1.5837647

[Jaydee]

What the heck…it’s ONLY 10 BILLION MORE now !

 

In 2010, then-defence minister Peter MacKay announced Canada was entering into an untendered agreement to purchase 65 F-35s, with delivery expected in 2016 and at a cost of $9-billion.

A no-confidence vote triggered in part by refusals to release costs associated with the F-35 program led to the minority Harper government’s collapse 11 years ago this week, sending Canadians to polls and returning the Conservatives to power with a majority government.

 

In 2015, opposition leader Justin Trudeau made the issue into a prominent plank in the Liberals’ election platform. “We will not buy the F-35 fighter jet,” he said, adding that if there would be a cheaper alternative.

 

When asked Monday whether the $19 billion price tag is still good, Anand said it was in the process of being "further refined."

 

[conehead]

Meh… everything costs more now than it did 10 years ago.

[Kip Powick]

Total waste of money

[Super 80]

I'm afraid that the F-35 will just become a money pit that will consume the entire airforce while not itself achieving a high degree of availability.

Kind of like the former Soviet states that inherited brand new MiG-29s they couldn't afford to operate.

[Specs]

I'm just glad the decision has been made. 

I wasn't looking forward to learning Mandarin or Russian if we picked the Grippen.

[Rich Pulman]

1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

If you don't agree then vote accordingly... may I be so bold as to suggest the NDP.

Ouch! Even a Will Smith slap wouldn’t hurt that much.