Ottawa changes jet plans as audit pegs F-35 costs at $45-billion

[Tronic]

Ottawa changes jet plans as audit pegs F-35 costs at $45-billion

The cradle-to-grave cost to Canadian taxpayers for buying and operating the controversial F-35 warplane will exceed half a billion dollars per jet – numbers that are being released as Ottawa officially backs away from a plan to buy this aircraft.

This number may ultimately prove to be too low if the cash-strapped U.S. government cuts its order for the stealth fighter-bomber – a move that could increase the average price of the planes.

The Harper government is executing a U-turn on buying the Lockheed Martin plane after a spending watchdog revealed it made the decision without a full understanding of the costs of ownership.

Ottawa formally announced Wednesday it’s now shopping around to see if alternatives to the F-35 better meet its needs as a replacement for the aging CF-18 Hornets.

"We are pressing reset on this acquisition in order to ensure a balance between military needs and taxpayer interests," Defence Minister Peter MacKay said.

Added Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose: "Let me be clear: the government of Canada will not proceed with a decision to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft until all steps ... are completed."

The government has acknowledged, however that it could again decide the F-35 is best for the job.

On Wednesday the Tories released new, more rigorous estimates that show the F-35 program would run Canada more than $45-billion. This expansive estimate includes the jets and costs of operation such as fuel, maintenance and upgrades.

This far exceeds the $9-billion that the Harper governmemnt told Canadians the jet would cost when they announced they would buy the F-35 back in 2010.

This would be the bill for buying 65 planes and as many as 11 spares for a price tag that works out to more than $600-million per plane.

The new forecast, which was scrutinized by consulting firm KPMG, assumes a 30-year lifespan for each jet.

Less than 20 per cent of the costs are for buying the initial 65 planes. The other 80 per cent of expenses are for keeping this fleet operating for three decades.

The Canadian government is still however assuming the U.S., as the largest buyer of the planes, will buy a large order of the jets. In one of the documents Ottawa released Wednesday it said it’s expecting the U.S. and partners will purchase 3,100 jets – a number that’s expected to fall as Washington, heavily in debt, trims its order.

The government said the overall pricetag for Canada will rise by $500-million for every reduction of 400 aircraft that are cut from international orders. That’s because there would be fewer economies of scale to be derived from mass production.

Separately, the Harper government trimmed its estimates for the maximum industrial benefits Canadian companies might win for supplying the F-35 production. This country’s firms are only able to compete for work related to the warplane because Canada joined a consortium of countries planning on buying the jets.

The government said now it believes the maximum potential industrial benefits from F-35 supply work would be $9.8-billion – instead of the $12-billion Ottawa previously touted. So far Canadian companies have secured $438-million in work.

Also, the Harper government has redrawn the list of independent monitors who will oversee a hunt for alternatives to the F-35 Lightning fighter after retired general Charles Bouchard bowed out.

The Conservatives announced a panel of four monitors Wednesday who will vet the federal government’s new search for a warplane in the face of ballooning cost estimates for the Lockheed Martin jet Ottawa picked in 2010.

The Harper government is going shopping for alternatives to the controversial F-35 in the most significant demonstration yet that it is prepared to walk away from its first choice for a new warplane.

The Conservatives, who have been heavily criticized for selecting the F-35 without due regard for price and availability, are launching this effort to repair their credibility as stewards of public money.

The Conservatives announced in July, 2010, they had decided to buy the F-35 without any competition, and for more than a year and a half, described the jet purchase as a $9-billion acquisition. But in April, 2012, Auditor-General John Ferguson revealed it would cost $25-billion for the first 20 years alone.

To demonstrate that they are restarting the procurement process from scratch, Canadian officials will collect information from other plane manufacturers, including U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the Super-Hornet, and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon. They may also contact Sweden’s Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, and France’s Dassault, maker of the Rafale.

The ballooning lifetime cost of the F-35 fighter and Ottawa’s decision to shop around for alternatives are creating panic among Canadian companies betting on supply contracts for the Lockheed Martin plane, sources have said.

The government aims to complete this reappraisal of what the fighter aircraft market can offer Canada as expeditiously as possible in 2013.

The government is requesting answers to questions, including: what kind of plane does Canada need? How long can Ottawa keep its aging CF-18s keep flying? Which jet makers can meet Canada’s budget and requirements in a timely fashion? Do other jets need to be purchased as a stop-gap? Is the best plane still the F-35?

Government officials said Wednesday that Ottawa has not decided whether to call for competitive bids to supply a plane and will await the results of the options analysis.

Canada has signed no contract to buy F-35s, and while it has signalled to Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, that it wants 65, it has no obligation to buy them.

It did sign a memorandum of understanding in 2006 that set the terms by which a country would buy the aircraft and also enabled domestic companies to compete for supply contracts for the plane.

Ottawa changes jet plans as audit pegs F-35 costs at $45-billion - The Globe and Mail

Canada should fix it's deficit first before spending this much money on new jets. The Super Hornet would be a good replacement for the CF-18s, though. The Rafale is good too if Dassault sticks to it's promise to assemble the bird in Canada.

[Stitch]

I always thought the Super Bug was a better fit for the CAF anyway; they're already flying the F-18B/D, they don't need a stealth platform (it's not like they're going to try and invade the US anytime in the near future), and I know the CAF is big on dual-engine safety because of the vast distances they need to patrol. I say spend a lot less money and get twice as many airframes to boot.

[Officer of Engineers]

The RCAF's primary fighter needs are

1) Defence of Canadian Air Space
2) Expeditionary Force under Coalition Command

Sending 2 F-35s instead of 6 F-18s is a hell of a lot cheaper.

[Officer of Engineers]

The RCAF is getting the F-35. There is no two ways around it. The birds may wait a decade more but all the HNIC have skewed the requirements left, right, and centre.

[JA Boomer]

I always thought the Super Bug was a better fit for the CAF anyway; they're already flying the F-18B/D, they don't need a stealth platform (it's not like they're going to try and invade the US anytime in the near future), and I know the CAF is big on dual-engine safety because of the vast distances they need to patrol. I say spend a lot less money and get twice as many airframes to boot.

We operate CF-188A/B's, which are very slightly modified and heavily upgraded F/A-18A/B models.

We don't NEED a stealth platform, but why not give our pilots the best possible situations awareness and self defense capability when operating in hostile territory (such as when we flew operational missions over Syria this year).

How long will the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet be operated by the US Navy? When they do retire the aircraft, Canada would likely be left as the sole operator of the type (assuming Australia has also retired their birds, and I know the Growler will still be operating). This would make the operational costs of the fighter extremely high as spare parts would become hard to come by.

Also have to consider inter-operability with the US and NATO. After the US retires the Super Hornet, we may find it hard to upgrade the aircraft to effectively be used in multi-national packages. With the F-35, this won't be an issue.

You mention dual engines and long range missions. While I agree with you about the dual engines being a plus, the F-35 (as far as I know) has a greater range than the Super Hornet, lending itself to our NORAD missions and commitments.

While I recognize the argument that a 4.5 generation fighter may be better suited to Canada's requirements RIGHT NOW, considering this plane will likely serve as Canada's front line fighter for the next 40 years, in my opinion the F-35 is the only option.

[Deltacamelately]

The RCAF's primary fighter needs are

1) Defence of Canadian Air Space
2) Expeditionary Force under Coalition Command

Sending 2 F-35s instead of 6 F-18s is a hell of a lot cheaper.

Sir,

Can't the above points be taken care of with the Eurofighter?
If the British induct it and still remain commited to the NATO expeditionary missions, I don't see why this bird can't serve the RCAF and provide interoperability..

[Officer of Engineers]

The Americans can provide spare parts better than the Europeans can.

[Jimmy]

Sir,

Can't the above points be taken care of with the Eurofighter?
If the British induct it and still remain commited to the NATO expeditionary missions, I don't see why this bird can't serve the RCAF and provide interoperability..

The EF might (and I mean MIGHT) be a better fighter, but the F-35 is the better all-around independent multirole airframe.

[Tronic]

How will the F-35 figure in Canada's Arctic patrols? The RCAF has to patrol a very large land mass up North, and I wonder how well a single-engined fighter like the F-35 would fit that role. Wouldn't a twin engine be a safer bet?

[Officer of Engineers]

How will the F-35 figure in Canada's Arctic patrols? The RCAF has to patrol a very large land mass up North, and I wonder how well a single-engined fighter like the F-35 would fit that role. Wouldn't a twin engine be a safer bet?

It doesn't. CF-18s and their replacements are for intercepting and watching Russian birds. Flashing the flag is done by the AURORAS. Planting the flag is done by snow mobiles and dog teams, aka the Rangers.

Yeah, NDHQ is cheap.

[Tronic]

It doesn't. CF-18s and their replacements are for intercepting and watching Russian birds. Flashing the flag is done by the AURORAS. Planting the flag is done by snow mobiles and dog teams, aka the Rangers.

Yeah, NDHQ is cheap.

Sir, will that continue to be the case as the Arctic ice continues to shrink and Russia gets more aggressive in it's claims over the far North? The area is vastly rich in mineral deposits and is estimated to have more than a quarter of the world's oil and gas reserves. Russia has already been indulging in flag planting in Canada's portion of the arctic, and I believe the Harper government had announced, a few years back, the construction of a deep-sea naval port on Baffin Island.

Is it wrong to assume a possibility arising in the future for RCAF birds to be making regular trips up North? Or are those birds only launched if the Russian aircraft come too far down into Canadian territory (seeing that the RCAF's bases are located quite a distance away in Cold Lake and Bagotville)? I don't know how good the radar coverage is over such a vast area, but having 2 engines just seems to be a more comforting thought, rather than banking on the SAR teams to find you in time.

[Officer of Engineers]

The RCAF has several Forward Operating Locations that they maintain should they need to place aircrafts closer to the action. When the Russians were getting antsy a couple years back, CF-18s moved to Canadian Forces Station ALERT. Loiter time is more important than two engines.

DND has a way to putting things that they don't want out of sight, out of mind. That port has not even reached design stage yet. The first thing you would see if Baffin ever get ice free year round is the extinction of the polar bears. They prefer seal but they can run down a man with ease.

[Tronic]

Wow, I didn't know there was an RCAF airbase at CFS Alert!

Sir, I believe the Super Hornets have a far greater loiter time than the F-35.

[Officer of Engineers]

Wow, I didn't know there was an RCAF airbase at CFS Alert!

More like an airfield. Supplies and maintenance crews had to be flown in and the work has to be done outdoors. Not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.

Sir, I believe the Super Hornets have a far greater loiter time than the F-35.

You're asking the SUPERBUG to go up against the future PAK-FA, J-20, and J-31. While it may be still prevail, I rather have the upper hand from the start.

[Firestorm]

You're asking the SUPERBUG to go up against the future PAK-FA, J-20, and J-31. While it may be still prevail, I rather have the upper hand from the start.

Well the USN obviously thinks they are good enough. They ordered more as late as 2010. In the unlikely event that the balloon goes up in the Pacific USN Superbugs will be at the forefront in the initial stages.

One thing to note about the F-35, Pak-Fa and J-20 is that their internal payload capacity is limited. And once you hang weapons/fuel tanks on the wings, the low RCS goes for a toss. The avionics on the Pak-Fa and J-20 are unlikely to be as good as those on the Superbug either.