Friday, December 7, 2012


F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B

Michael Den Tandt | Dec 6, 2012 7:13 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 6, 2012 7:51 PM ET
More from Michael Den Tandt | @mdentandt
Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press“Where is the eject button?” Defence Minister Peter MacKay checks out the cockpit of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter following the July 16, 2010 announcement that Canada would be purchasing a number of them.
Note: This is an update to a column filed earlier today
The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.
Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.
This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.
The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is not a member of the cabinet operations committee. It remains unclear whether he was present at the meeting Tuesday. However, MacKay is a member of the cabinet Priorities and Planning committee, which is to discuss the F-35 decision Friday morning.
The F-18s currently flown by the RCAF are at the tail end of their life cycle and are not expected to be operable much beyond 2020, at the outside.
NP Graphics
NP GraphicsClick to view full graphic.
The fighter procurement process has been the responsibility of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose since last spring, following Ferguson’s audit. It is understood that veteran senior bureaucrat Tom Ring, who handled the government’s much-praised ship-building contract process in the fall of 2011, is now steering the reframed fighter replacement process, from within Public Works.
Last spring, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson ignited a political firestorm when he reported that the top-line cost cited by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign – $9-billion for 65 planes, or $15-billion including maintenance and other life-cycle costs – was $10-billion below the Defence department’s internal estimate.
Even the internal figure of $25.1-billion was suspect, critics said, because it assumed a 20-year life cycle. The longevity of the Lockheed-Martin-built aircraft, according to the Pentagon, is 36 years.
KPMG’s audit, due out next week, has confirmed the contention, long made by critics such as former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams, that the F-35 program’s real cost would be much higher than any previously stated government estimate, sources say.
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30-billion over a 30-year life cycle.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signaling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”
Gen. Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons Defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said; the F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked. Lawson’s answer: “No.”
The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.
Also in the mix, former Industry Minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.
Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet.

Thursday, November 29, 2012


John Ivison: F-35 purchase in jeopardy with upcoming KPMG report on full cost of fighter jet

John Ivison | Nov 29, 2012 7:33 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 29, 2012 7:39 PM ET
More from John Ivison
The federal government's planned purchase of F-35 jets may fly into the sunset with a new report disclosing its full cost. (Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin)
The federal government's planned purchase of F-35 jets may fly into the sunset with a new report disclosing its full cost. (Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin)
Before the House of Commons breaks for Christmas, KPMG’s review of the price tag for the F-35 fighter jets will be tabled in Parliament, breathing new life into Opposition claims of ballooning costs and Conservative mismanagement.
The report could sound the death knell for Canada’s involvement in the troubled project.
In the wake of a critical audit last spring by the Auditor-General, the accountancy firm was asked to give full-life-cycle costs for the F-35 – the all-in price of purchasing and operating the jets until 2052, not just the 20-year estimate the Department of National Defence provided.
The revised timeline will inevitably bloat the costs from the current $25-billion National Defence estimate.
Defence sources suggest that, were the same criteria applied to the widely admired $33-billion shipbuilding procurement process for the navy, costs for it would soar to over $100-billion.
As well, critics say, KPMG will not provide a comparator estimate for the F-35’s rivals, making it a “meaningless factoid,” in the words of one person familiar with the process.
Regardless, the impending arrival of a headline number several billion dollars higher than National Defence’s estimate has already set off a turf war within government between Defence officials and Public Works employees, who now run the fighter jet procurement process – not to mention their respective ministries.
In the eyes of National Defence, Public Works is already engaged in a butt-covering exercise by launching a “market analysis” of what alternatives exist to purchasing the F-35s.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay (R) and Industry Minister Tony Clement at a news conference to announce the intended purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, July 16, 2010. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
As the National Post revealed last week, the Harper government is set to ask rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their fighter jets.
That information will then be set against a risk analysis — weighing mission and capability requirements — to present to Rona Ambrose, the Public Works minister, and Peter MacKay, the Defence minister.
The current statement of requirement (SOR), which demanded the replacement for the current fleet of CF18s have stealth capability, will be “set aside,” according to Ms. Ambrose, while the options analysis is being undertaken.
However, in the House of Commons Tuesday, she let slip that the existing statement of requirement is not being set aside entirely — a bad omen for proponents of the F-35.
“The Secretariat [reviewing the CF18 replacement] will ensure the proper expertise is brought in to review the statement of requirement and do a full option analysis,” she said, in reply to a question.
This is significant, since there is no guarantee that stealth will be part of a new SOR – in fact, the thinking inside government is that it will not be. “I think military doctrine is changing fast,” said one source.
If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost may make it cost-prohibitive
An article in AOL Defence this week suggested that improvements in computing power may make stealth obsolete – radar systems will just become too powerful.
The article quoted Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, as saying “sensors will start to circumvent stealth.”
If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost – to $137-million from $69-million a decade ago, for early versions of the fighter, according to U.S. government figures – may make it cost-prohibitive. U.S. lawmakers, teetering on the brink of a fiscal cliff, may yet look at the project as an easy target for savings, reducing the number of planes being ordered from the current 2,443, thus increasing the unit cost for everyone else.
That possibility has spurred the Pentagon and the manufacturer Lockheed Martin into pressuring U.S. allies to help pay for the project. The New York Times reported Thursday that both have stepped up phone calls to allies to ensure they don’t bail on the program. Italy has already cut its order, the British and Australians have delayed decisions on plane numbers and the Netherlands is questioning the cost.
In Canada, senior members of government are at pains to point out we are at a “pre-acquisition phase” in the fighter jet replacement cycle. This will be news to anyone who remembers the signing of the memorandum of understanding two summers ago, when Ms. Ambrose, Mr. MacKay and then Industry Minister, Tony Clement took part in a glitzy photo op and announced the government had exercised its option to “acquire” the F-35.
Cautious voices at the time were saying the F-35 might be the right aircraft but it was too early to tell.
They were over-ruled then but the odds are they won’t be ignored this time around.
If a technical and financial case can be made for a rival aircraft like Boeing’s SuperHornet, the Harper government is likely to grasp it.
Not even the F-35’s most enthusiastic advocates on the government side are going to be keen to campaign on its merits in 2015, once the Opposition has finished with the KPMG report.

John Ivison: F-35 purchase in jeopardy with upcoming KPMG report on full cost of fighter jet

John Ivison | Nov 29, 2012 7:33 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 29, 2012 7:39 PM ET
More from John Ivison
The federal government's planned purchase of F-35 jets may fly into the sunset with a new report disclosing its full cost. (Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin)
The federal government's planned purchase of F-35 jets may fly into the sunset with a new report disclosing its full cost. (Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin)
Before the House of Commons breaks for Christmas, KPMG’s review of the price tag for the F-35 fighter jets will be tabled in Parliament, breathing new life into Opposition claims of ballooning costs and Conservative mismanagement.
The report could sound the death knell for Canada’s involvement in the troubled project.
In the wake of a critical audit last spring by the Auditor-General, the accountancy firm was asked to give full-life-cycle costs for the F-35 – the all-in price of purchasing and operating the jets until 2052, not just the 20-year estimate the Department of National Defence provided.
The revised timeline will inevitably bloat the costs from the current $25-billion National Defence estimate.
Defence sources suggest that, were the same criteria applied to the widely admired $33-billion shipbuilding procurement process for the navy, costs for it would soar to over $100-billion.
As well, critics say, KPMG will not provide a comparator estimate for the F-35’s rivals, making it a “meaningless factoid,” in the words of one person familiar with the process.
Regardless, the impending arrival of a headline number several billion dollars higher than National Defence’s estimate has already set off a turf war within government between Defence officials and Public Works employees, who now run the fighter jet procurement process – not to mention their respective ministries.
In the eyes of National Defence, Public Works is already engaged in a butt-covering exercise by launching a “market analysis” of what alternatives exist to purchasing the F-35s.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay (R) and Industry Minister Tony Clement at a news conference to announce the intended purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, July 16, 2010. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
As the National Post revealed last week, the Harper government is set to ask rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their fighter jets.
That information will then be set against a risk analysis — weighing mission and capability requirements — to present to Rona Ambrose, the Public Works minister, and Peter MacKay, the Defence minister.
The current statement of requirement (SOR), which demanded the replacement for the current fleet of CF18s have stealth capability, will be “set aside,” according to Ms. Ambrose, while the options analysis is being undertaken.
However, in the House of Commons Tuesday, she let slip that the existing statement of requirement is not being set aside entirely — a bad omen for proponents of the F-35.
“The Secretariat [reviewing the CF18 replacement] will ensure the proper expertise is brought in to review the statement of requirement and do a full option analysis,” she said, in reply to a question.
This is significant, since there is no guarantee that stealth will be part of a new SOR – in fact, the thinking inside government is that it will not be. “I think military doctrine is changing fast,” said one source.
If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost may make it cost-prohibitive
An article in AOL Defence this week suggested that improvements in computing power may make stealth obsolete – radar systems will just become too powerful.
The article quoted Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, as saying “sensors will start to circumvent stealth.”
If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost – to $137-million from $69-million a decade ago, for early versions of the fighter, according to U.S. government figures – may make it cost-prohibitive. U.S. lawmakers, teetering on the brink of a fiscal cliff, may yet look at the project as an easy target for savings, reducing the number of planes being ordered from the current 2,443, thus increasing the unit cost for everyone else.
That possibility has spurred the Pentagon and the manufacturer Lockheed Martin into pressuring U.S. allies to help pay for the project. The New York Times reported Thursday that both have stepped up phone calls to allies to ensure they don’t bail on the program. Italy has already cut its order, the British and Australians have delayed decisions on plane numbers and the Netherlands is questioning the cost.
In Canada, senior members of government are at pains to point out we are at a “pre-acquisition phase” in the fighter jet replacement cycle. This will be news to anyone who remembers the signing of the memorandum of understanding two summers ago, when Ms. Ambrose, Mr. MacKay and then Industry Minister, Tony Clement took part in a glitzy photo op and announced the government had exercised its option to “acquire” the F-35.
Cautious voices at the time were saying the F-35 might be the right aircraft but it was too early to tell.
They were over-ruled then but the odds are they won’t be ignored this time around.
If a technical and financial case can be made for a rival aircraft like Boeing’s SuperHornet, the Harper government is likely to grasp it.
Not even the F-35’s most enthusiastic advocates on the government side are going to be keen to campaign on its merits in 2015, once the Opposition has finished with the KPMG report.