Report urges a plan B for the F-35 
© 2012 iPolitics Inc.
Another study is suggesting the Canadian government rethink its planned purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets, pointing to the delays to the program as points of concern and noting that other allies are already developing secondary plans in case the jets are delayed further or if the program is stopped entirely.
The study, titled Canada’s F-35 purchase is a costly mistake, is set to appear in the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. Effectively what its authors — University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers and Salt Spring Forum research associate Stewart Webb — argue is that not developing some kind of contingency plan if the F-35 doesn’t pan out would be a costly error for Canada.
As others have, they point to a litany of issues surrounding the F-35’s development, including (but not limited to) delays in production, issues surrounding the stealth’s advantages compared to its cost, what seems to be a rising per-unit cost (though no firm number has really emerged yet), and worries that the speed of development has left the plane prone to a number of technical difficulties.
There are potentially some solutions in the way of an alternative plan, they say – something perhaps either involving not buying the F-35 in the end and simply purchasing more, newer F-18s (the Super Hornet), or perhaps buying a few of those (or the F-15) in order to compensate for an expected operational gap between when Canada’s current fleet of CF-18s are decommissioned and the F-35 finally arrives. Or, they suggested Wednesday morning at a press conference on Parliament Hill, Canada ought to be looking at investing in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which they say will cost less, operate in a range of environmental conditions, and are the real future of the industry.
Primarily, though, it seems to come down to an argument that the opposition members who were listening in Wednesday morning will likely be pleased to hear: That the government ought to consider putting the contract for new jets out to tender.
“We are putting forward a plan B, which is to not sign the F-35 contract, to buy some time with a small number of Hornets or Eagles and with that time explore whether or not the F-35 is indeed the right plane for the future,” Byers said.
So, OK. That’s all pretty standard stuff for anyone who’s been watching this debate unfold for the last 18 months or so. But there are two things I found interesting about what Byers and Webb are saying this week – in their study and in a piece they wrote for iPolitics.
First, to the report.
In their study, Byers and Webb make a point of outlining that it’s not been common practice for Canada to be on the “sharp end of the stick”, proverbially, when it comes to aerial operations. That is, Canada’s role has not usually been to take part in initial strikes against enemy air defences. Rather, they say, as in Libya, Canada is normally sent in after our allies destroyed those defences. The F-35 is designed to play the former role more than the latter, they argue – after all, it’s a stealth plane. In their paper, they argue that the reason behind such a shift might be to augment Canada’s standing with our allies, but, they say, this hardly seems like justification.
I asked them about it Wednesday. Why, I wondered, did they think the government would want to make that shift?
“I could speculate that there is a desire to be seen at the front line of operations and partnership with the United States or the United Kingdom, and one could speculate whether such a capability is part of the government’s long-term defence planning. I don’t know that for sure,” Byers said, adding again that we haven’t needed a “tip-of-the-spear capacity in the past, nor have I seen a convincing case for why we need it in the future.”
Secondly, I couldn’t help but notice how much this following passage in Byers and Webb’s piece for iPolitics reflects an argument that’s been put forth by the opposition ever since the looming scepter of pension cuts came into play post-Davos:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s upcoming budget will likely result in thousands of government layoffs and, quite possibly, reductions to Old Age Security. Canadians will experience poorer government services as a result; millions might face personal hardship.
Yet none of this would be necessary, were it not for the Harper government’s stubborn desire to purchase 65 unproven, increasingly expensive and much-delayed F-35 stealth fighter planes.
I’m still confused as to why this argument seems like a winner to anyone, because it’s just so inherently flawed. I asked Byers Wednesday whether that was really a fair comparison, and whether or not in actual fact, Canadians are not being forced to choose between fighter jets and pensions, but actually (as Byers and Webb seem to argue we would be), being perhaps asked to choose between one kind of fighter jet and another (ie. F-35 versus F-18 Super Hornet)?
Here’s what he said to that:
Well, our argument is that we may need to buy a small number of jets of another kind that cost only $55 million per plane, or put potentially $30 billion into an untested plane in a serious financial commitment that would tie our hands in all kinds of ways. We simply want the government of Canada to realize that if it is looking for ways to save billions of dollars … that the F-35 program has to be on the table also. Put aside the technical limitations of the plane, put aside all of our concerns about whether or not we need stealth, this is a big, expensive program and there’s no urgency here.
So where does that leave us?
If we go by Byers’ assertion that the F-18 Super Hornet will come to about $55 million per plane, Canada would still be looking at a multi-billion dollar program once a number of them were purchased and once long-term carry-on costs were added on. Not to mention, according to their plan, we’d be adding to that a number of UAVs, which are not cheap.
Which is not to say that the F-35 is a total winner, but rather to point out that either way, upgrading our air force capabilities is going to cost money – lots of it. So, any way you cut it, Canada is shelling out cash sometime in the near future for some planes or other hot toys for the RCAF, and all arguments like the ‘fighter jets-versus-pensions’ do is unnecessarily confuse the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment