PDA

View Full Version : Canada's F-35 costs soar



Godfather
03-11-2011, 01:36 AM
Canadians are being warned that the Harper government is underestimating the lifetime costs of new F-35 fighter jets by more than $12-billion – a third blow to a government already under fire for stonewalling in the Commons.

A new report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, whose post was established by the Conservatives to ensure “truth in budgeting,” says the total price tag for the jets is close to $30-billion – nearly 70 per cent more than government estimates.

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mr. Page’s report is the latest bit of bad news in a week filled with it. Speaker Peter Milliken ruled on Wednesday that the government appeared to be in contempt of Parliament for failing to properly provide estimates for the cost of its crime legislation and for misleading Parliament in statements by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda over funding cuts to an aid group.

Now it is being accused of low-balling the cost one of the most expensive defence purchases in decades.

In a report released on Thursday that feeds opposition party accusations that the Tories are overspending on military hardware, Mr. Page said the Department of Defence failed to include set-up and logistics, and neglected to project sufficient amounts for maintenance when calculating the cost of the new fighters.

With the additional cost included, the price of the planes will actually be $29.3-billion at the end of their full life cycle of three decades, he concluded.

The Liberals have promised to cancel the F-35 contract if they win the next election, and they said on Thursday that Mr. Page’s report proves the Tories have been hiding the program’s full cost to taxpayers.

“This is an unconscionable amount, and the Harper Conservatives have again misled Canadians and Parliament,” Liberal defence critic Dominic LeBlanc said.

That will be a familiar refrain from the opposition. The Conservatives may face a vote by the House confirming that the government and Ms. Oda are in contempt of Parliament just as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty presents his budget on March 22, greatly increasing the likelihood that the opposition parties will topple the government in a confidence vote and force a spring federal election.

A senior Liberal official who spoke on condition of not being named refused to rule out the possibility of defeating the government when Parliament returns after next week’s break.

“We are taking this day by day,” the official said. “It’s a pretty serious matter to be ruled in contempt by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

Further adding to the political volatility, the Bloc Québécois has reversed its position on the fighter-jet purchase and come out in support of holding an open competition to select new planes.

It had previously backed the Harper government's decision to choose the F-35 without competition because it believed the purchase would yield important industrial benefits for Quebec.

But Bloc officials said they changed their minds after reading Mr. Page's latest report.

The budget officer’s report was peer-reviewed by non-partisan experts at the United States Congressional Budget Office, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Queen’s University.

The Conservatives said on Thursday they are not budging from their earlier estimates. They have not made full forecasts, but Mr. Page’s office said figures released by the government have suggested the total cost of the planes would be $17.6-billion.

“Department of National Defence procurement experts stand by their cost projections,” said Jay Paxton, Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s director of communications.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters on Thursday that he refused to “get into a lengthy debate in numbers.”

“This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available,” he said. “...This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.”

As for Mr. Milliken’s ruling on two contempt motions earlier this week, he dismissed it as simply part of the cut and thrust of partisan debate.

“Our focus can’t become on Parliamentary procedure,” he told reporters. “Our focus has to be on the big interests of Canadians, and in my judgment, that is the economy.”

The Conservatives are hoping most voters will dismiss the spate of accusations that the government has become autocratic and undemocratic – over everything from possible election campaign financing abuses to using taxpayers’ money to fund government ads that could be seen as Conservative propaganda – as opposition posturing, and can be persuaded that on the issue that matters, protecting the economic recovery, only the Conservatives can be trusted.

Godfather
03-11-2011, 01:42 AM
My two cents, and paraphrasing what a friend of mine was saying:

The real issue here is that the Conservatives lied... and I'm a Conservative voter generally.

The cost here are outrageous, and for what we're purchasing, just totally ridiculous. Our CF-18's need to be replaced in the next decade, they're old and depleted. But the amount of money here at this kind of time just can't really be justified. We have bigger issues.

More importantly, the F-35's are not a good option for this country. To clarify, I have a huge boner for them... but they are single engine VTOL-equippable stealth fighters. This means that they are perfect for situations that require short range, fast-attack aircraft. They are best placed on aircraft carriers and used against well defended ground targets that, owing to their robust guided missile defense, require stealth to approach.

I can't imagine *any* situation in which these things would be more useful to defend Canadian airspace or contribute to ground operations in Afghanistan than a long-range, long-haul fighter-bomber that has enough operational freedom to be mounted somewhere that *isn't* an American aircraft carrier.

These jets are also extremely poor at operating in adverse conditions; the single-engine design makes them prone to breakdowns when exposed to extreme temperatures or particulate saturation... Which, combined with their cripplingly short range, essentially means that they're of sadly limited use in defending/patrolling our arctic (from the Ruskies)......which ironically seems to be Harper's line for why we need these jets so badly.

The whole thing is just a joke. Harper's acting like an American patsy again. If he was really serious about revitalizing the Canadian aerospace industry as he claims he is... (which he's not), he'd institute another program like the Avro Arrow at a Canadian company like Bombardier, and build a fighter designed from the ground up to suit Canada's operational needs. That would, in my opinion, be worth spending on more than the $30 billion for F-35's.

In the meantime, we'd be better off scrapping our participation, buying 60 rugged, reliable, cheap-as-dirt fourth-generation fighter-bombers for roughly $7 billion, and spending the remaining $23 doing something useful like paying down the $56 billion dollar deficit.

AntZ
03-11-2011, 07:24 AM
Or you guys can just keep doing what you've always done!


Just sleep easy at night knowing Alaskan based F-15 and F-22's will take out the Ruskies long before any alarm bell rings at a Canadian air base! :bye:

Godfather
03-11-2011, 07:30 AM
He knows :shock: We just debate this stuff in parliament and make phony news articles so America thinks we're trying 8-[

beowulf
03-11-2011, 10:21 AM
. but they are single engine VTOL-equippable stealth fighters. This means that they are perfect for situations that require short range, fast-attack aircraft. They are best placed on aircraft carriers and used against well defended ground targets that, owing to their robust guided missile defense, require stealth to approach.



dont think canada is interested in the vtol 'b' model......more likely the conventional 'a'

but i agree.......its not a suitable plane for canada at this precise time.............be better served by buying the super bug version of the f/a 18 thats a sort of cheaper, less capable alternative to the f35

Max
03-11-2011, 07:04 PM
The problem lies with the US aerospace giants. As a rule, they give cost estimates they have no intention of honoring. In the private sector, you compete for a contract, and if you win, you are legally bound to honor the provisions of that contract. If you can't/won't, then the penalties fall upon you. Unfortunately the US department of defense does not work this way, and the giant aerospace companies that supply the pentagon with military weapons and craft, take full advantage of this.

When they bid out these projects, they have to prove it's worthiness, and cost effectiveness. The JSF competition they entered against Boeing for the big prize was supposed to deliver a final production plane for under 50 million a pop, and Lockheed/Martin had no problems stating they could do it. In truth, they already had a pre-planned set of reasons to claim cost overruns. All the aerospace giants do this. A good buddy of mine at Northrop has told me procurment stories that would curl your hair. Meetings where department heads are told to wildly underestimate costs. End result, delivered aircraft are either dramatically reduced (B-2 and F-22) or they are simply canceled completely (A-12 Avenger). This how they post hundreds of millions in profit each year. It's a culture of leeching as much as possible from th US tax payer, and to deliver as little as possible.

US administrations for years have promised to reform this culture of deception, but there are simply too many members of congress who are in bed with these companies, and the story remains the same.

The two JSF prototypes were supposed to validate the worthiness of the birds, and Lockheed had a vigorous fly off competition against Boeing's entry. The production bird and F-135 engine are not that much different from the prototypes, and yet they are going to end up triple the cost or more? This kind of continuous price gouging would never be tolerated among the larger business community, but like I said, it's the rule of thumb for the pentagon.

Net result...the UK has ditched plans for the STOVL F-35B plane, and are going with the C variant. Other countries who were on board for this plane are now seriously considering dropping out and going with cheaper/proven aircraft like the Typhoon and F/A-18EF Super Hornet. The US is damned close to just pulling the whole plug on the STOVL variant. Lockheed claims they have technical difficulties and need the extra money. Fine, but that's not the contract you signed, is it? They said they could meet the Marines' specification at "this" cost, and now they can't, and expect the US tax payer to make up the difference. It's insanely arrogant, and yet it works for them everytime....in both military and non military circles. Look what Lockheed did with both the VentureStar spacecraft intended to replace the shuttle fleet, and more recently the Orion spacecraft. They were given literally billions of dollars, and at the end of the day, delivered nothing. Again, they pocket the money, and both programs are canceled. Now the Orion will be little more than an emergency escape capsule for the ISS.

It's a culture of deception and US funded rip-offs.

I hope Canada pulls out of the program, and everyone else too. Maybe then something will be done about this corrupt procurment process.

FBD
03-11-2011, 07:16 PM
this is another reason why I'm against big government - the only thing they really do well is waste money, and everything else they have a bottomless bag of excuses for.

Max
03-11-2011, 07:20 PM
this is another reason why I'm against big government - the only thing they really do well is waste money, and everything else they have a bottomless bag of excuses for.

100% correct sir