Harper Government Accused Of Rigging F-35 Purchase:
'via Blog this'
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
On Friday the 23rd of March, 2012, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence released the new White Paper for the Norwegian Defence Sector. The paper builds on the significant improvements made over the course of the previous years while ensuring that the Norwegian Armed Forces remain capable of meeting both current and future operational requirements.
The plan covers the four-year period from 2013-1016. During the course of this plan, Norway’s defence budget, already among the highest in Europe pr. capita, projects a real-term increase of 7%. This is the beginning of a temporary strengthening of the defence budget dedicated to the purchase of Norway’s new fleet of F-35 combat aircraft. In addition, resources that will be freed up from NATOs gradual draw-down in Afghanistan towards 2014 will be reallocated internally in the defence sector, primarily to cover the strengthening of the Army and the Home Guard.
Improved Operational Capability
The previous paper led to significant enhancements in the operational capabilities of the Norwegian Armed Forces. This development is slated to continue, with the introduction into service of the Naval Strike Missile, the NH 90 Maritime Helicopter and additional numbers of enlisted personnel. Along with further structural enhancements, both in the Army, the Home Guard and the Air Force, this will continue to develop the capabilities of the Norwegian Armed Forces as a whole. “The previous paper gave us a solid foundation to build on with a Force that finally is in balance” says Norwegian Minister of Defence, Espen Barth Eide. “We can now make changes to our structure because it is the smart thing to do, and not because we are forced to do so.”
Focus on people
The men and women of the Norwegian Armed Forces represent our greatest resource, and a key component of this paper is the announcement of a reform in the competence management of Defence sector personnel. It will improve the ability to recruit, develop, manage and retain the advanced skills and competencies required for a modern military force. “Over the past four years, we have undertaken a massive restructuring of our operational structures and equipment. The time has come to focus even more on our people” says Norwegian Minister of Defence, Espen Barth Eide.
Updated Procurement Schedule for the F-35
Preparing the procurement of new combat aircraft for the Armed Forces will be a key priority of the White Paper. The ambition remains for a total acquisition of 52 aircraft, including four training aircraft, and despite changes made by other partner nations Norway finds that its previous and robust real-cost estimates remain accurate. The paper also recommends that the aircraft are located on a main base at Ørland Air Force Base in Mid-Norway, with a smaller forward operating base at Evenes in Northern Norway in order to provide permanent Quick Reaction Alert capabilities in the High North. In addition, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence now outlines an updated procurement schedule that will consider both accelerating and extending the previously planned procurement process. The new timeline under consideration includes the following key elements:
- Potential acceleration of the procurement run of four F-35 training aircraft – The Government will consider moving the target date for two of the four aircraft approved in 2011 up from 2016 to 2015.
- Potential acceleration and extension of the procurement run for the main body of the procurement - A new start date of 2017 is being considered while the final procurement year may be extended to 2023 or 2024.
The Norwegian parliament will be involved in each yearly acquisition of aircraft. The final six aircraft of the main body of the procurement will also be confirmed separately at a later stage, once the initial 42 aircraft have been ordered.
“Norway chose the F-35 in 2008 after a long and thorough process, and the aircraft will play a vital part in guaranteeing Norway’s future ability to deter aggression and contribute to international peace and security” says Norwegian Minister of Defence, Espen Barth Eide.
“We remain confident that the F-35 represents the best capability for the best value possible. The purpose of the adjusted procurement plan is to give the Norwegian Government greater financial freedom of manoeuvre during the years of the main procurement by spreading out the cost more evenly. We believe this new schedule better balances this concern with the introduction of a vital new capability to the Norwegian Armed Forces” says Eide.
What GAO Found
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) restructuring continues into a third year, adding to cost and schedule. Since June 2010, the total cost estimate increased about $15 billion, $5 billion for development and $10 billion for procurement. There will likely be additional changes when the Department of Defense (DOD) approves a new program baseline, expected soon. Compared to the current approved baseline from 2007, total costs have increased about $119 billion, full-rate production has been delayed 5 years, and initial operational capability dates are now unsettled because of program uncertainties. While the total number of aircraft the U. S. plans to buy has not changed, DOD has for 3 straight years reduced near-term procurement quantities, deferring aircraft and costs to future years. Since 2002, the program has reduced aircraft procurement quantities through 2017 by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. As the program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035.
Most of the instability in the program has been and continues to be the result of highly concurrent development, testing, and production. Overall performance in 2011 was mixed as the program achieved 6 of 11 primary objectives. Developmental flight testing gained momentum and is about one-fifth complete with the most challenging tasks still ahead. The program can expect more changes to aircraft design and manufacturing processes. Performance of the short takeoff and vertical landing variant improved this year and its “probation” period to fix deficiencies was ended early, even though several fixes are temporary and untested. Management and development of the more than 24 million lines of software code continue to be of concern and late software releases have delayed testing and training. Development of the critical mission systems that give the JSF its core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky. To date, only 4 percent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified. Testing of a fully integrated JSF aircraft is now expected in 2015 at the earliest. Deficiencies with the helmet mounted display, integral to mission systems functionality and concepts of operation, are most problematic. DOD is funding a less-capable alternate helmet as a back-up. The autonomic logistics information system, a key ground system for improving aircraft availability and lowering support costs, is not yet fully developed.
Cost overruns on the first four annual procurement contracts total more than $1 billion and aircraft deliveries are on average more than one year late. Officials said the government’s share of the cost growth is $672 million; this adds about $11 million on average to the price of each of the 63 aircraft under those contracts. In addition to the overruns, the government also incurred an estimated $373 million in retrofit costs on produced aircraft to correct deficiencies discovered in testing. The manufacturing process is still absorbing a higher than expected number of engineering changes resulting from flight testing, which makes it difficult to achieve efficient production rates. Until engineering changes are reduced, there are risks of additional cost overruns and retrofit costs. The program now estimates that the number of changes will persist at elevated levels through 2019. Even with the substantial reductions in near-term procurement quantities, DOD is still investing billions of dollars on hundreds of aircraft while flight testing has years to go.
Why GAO Did This Study
The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the JSF, is DOD’s most costly and ambitious aircraft acquisition, seeking to simultaneously develop and field three aircraft variants for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and eight international partners. The JSF is critical to DOD’s long-term recapitalization plans as it is intended to replace hundreds of legacy aircraft. Total U.S. investment in the JSF is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft over several decades and will require a long-term, sustained funding commitment. In 2010, DOD began to extensively restructure the program to address relatively poor cost, schedule, and performance outcomes.
This testimony draws on GAO’s extensive body of work on the JSF, including preliminary results from the current annual review mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This testimony discusses (1) program costs, schedule changes, and affordability issues, (2) performance testing results, software, and technical risks, and (3) procurement contract cost performance, concurrency impacts, manufacturing results, and design changes. GAO’s work included analyses of a wide range of program documents and interviews with defense and contractor officials.
What GAO Recommends
GAO has made prior recommendations to help reduce risk and improve outcomes, which DOD has implemented to varying degrees. GAO’s forthcoming report will address these in detail along with potential new recommendations.
For more information, contact Michael J. Sullivan at (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
F-35 delays may cost Australia billions
|
|
Published: March. 22, 2012 at 5:30 PM
Advertisement
CANBERRA, Australia, March 22 (UPI) -- Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith has decided to delay an order for more JSF F-35 fighters.
The Royal Australian Air Force is scheduled to receive a second batch of 58 Joint Strike Fighters, and Smith's decision to delay the order is being criticized, as it may increase their final cost.
Both Ministry of Defense and industry critics say the decision could create the air warfare capability gap the government says it is trying to avoid, The Canberra Times reported Thursday.
Last month Smith told Parliament he worried that ''a delay in the production of the Joint Strike Fighter and the aging of our classic Hornets'' would create an air warfare capability gap.
Lockheed Martin Vice President Tom Burbage told a parliamentary defense committee the postponement of plane orders by the U.S. and other governments impacted by the global financial crisis was ''the single largest contributor to the increases in the unit cost of the F-35,'' and he urged the Australian government to ''stay the course'' to keep the production line for the sophisticated fifth-generation stealth fighter running at maximum efficiency.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/03/22/F-35-delays-may-cost-Australia-billions/UPI-36661332451805/#ixzz1psyEjhe4
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Leak suggests F-35 fighter jet purchase fraught with errors
Draft of auditor general's report due April 3 suggests government broke procurement rules
The Canadian Press
Posted: Mar 21, 2012 8:55 AM ET
Last Updated: Mar 21, 2012 9:16 AM ET
A draft copy of an upcoming auditor general report condemns both National Defence and Public Works for ignoring procurement rules and not doing their homework before the government committed to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter jet. (Northrop Grumman handout)
Canada's auditor general has both National Defence and Public Works in his sights when it comes to the troubled F-35 stealth fighter program, say senior government sources.
A draft copy of the scathing review, circulating in Ottawa for weeks, suggests the air force didn't do its pricing homework and government officials failed to follow procurement rules, say those who've read it.
It's not clear whether the language will be toned down in the final report, Michael Ferguson's first as auditor general, when it's released April 3.
But federal officials familiar with the document note no final decision on purchasing the multi-role fighter has been made, and may take a year or two.
"It's bad, (but) how can the auditor general be auditing a purchase that hasn't taken place?" said one senior official, who asked not to be identified.
"The process to select, you can look at. They are pre-supposing a decision to acquire has taken place and it hasn't."
Julian Fantino, the minister in charge of defence procurement, gave a similar message to the House of Commons defence committee last week, and went further by saying that Ottawa reserves the right to bail on the multibillion-dollar program.
Canada's commitment softening
Senior officials say the auditor general's harsh review is behind the Harper government's change in posture over the last few weeks, where a hard-line message of commitment has softened into skepticism about the international program, which is billions of dollars off target and years behind schedule.
The Conservative government's plan has been to buy 65 of the radar-evading jets.
The sources said the Harper government was warned last year not to be so absolute in its public support, especially in the aftermath of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's criticism of the air force's cost estimates.
Politicians were apparently counselled to say they'll "have a look at it" and a formal contract signing was still "three years away from now."
But the advice was ignored, coming on the eve of an election where the Liberals attempted to make the F-35 purchase one of their campaign planks.
Instead, the Conservatives dug in and insisted their July 2010 commitment to the Lockheed-Martin fighter as a replacement for the CF-18s was final.
They held to that position even in the face of mounting worries about further delays and possible cost increases as the U.S. government pushed off some of its initial aircraft orders to future years.
There is apparently growing frustration within the military that it is going "wear" the criticisms of the auditor's report.
One senior official noted the air force didn't have to make a decision on replacing the 1980s vintage CF-18s for a few years and that the 2010 announcement was all about positioning business and the aerospace sector for F-35 contracts.
Procurement safeguards ignored
Liberal defence critic John McKay said he finds the potential criticism of Public Works to be most troubling.
"They are, in effect, the watchdog of the procurement process," McKay said Tuesday.
"Just because you haven't signed a contract doesn't mean that you're not in a procurement process. So, I don't know if that is a valid reason."
Alan Williams, a former senior procurement official, also said the absence of a contract is irrelevant and added the important principle of civilian control over the military is at stake with the F-35 program.
He said the air force has run roughshod over the defence establishment and dictated what it wants and if civilians don't challenge it, the system is called into question.
"They're there to safeguard the system. If they don't do that, why do you need them there?"
The Conservatives, he said, have no one to blame but themselves for the political back-peddling.
"The poor taxpayer has every right to question what the heck is going on here," he said.
"The government's strident (tone) and scorn for opposition from any source, whether it's MPs or whether it's from the (Parliamentary Budget Officer) or whatever, essentially precludes any kind of reasoned dialogue."
Much of the debate around the program centred on the cost.
The Conservatives have insisted the entire purchase and support costs will be between $14 billion and $16 billion, making the jets the largest defence purchase in Canadian history. But the budget officer and critics have challenged that, delivering estimates of up to $29.5 billion
.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
John Ivison: F-35 bid process was ‘hijacked’ by DND, former official says
Mar 19, 2012 – 9:24 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 19, 2012 9:26 PM ET
Lockheed Martin/Handout
The federal government's decision to purchase F-35s has been plagued with controversy from the beginning.
We know that the new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is going to turn his attention to the purchase of the troubled F-35 fighter aircraft in his first report early next month. We suspect he is going to be unhappy that the military insisted on buying the fighter plane Holt Renfrew would sell, when it could have bought one cut-price from The Bay.
We don’t know precisely the nature of his criticism — and his office isn’t saying. But a conversation with the man who inked the initial deal on the F-35 project, as a senior official with the Department of National Defence, offers some clues about the nature of the Hadron Collider of censure that is likely coming down on the heads of the senior soldiers, bureaucrats and Conservative politicians involved in the saga.
Alan Williams is a retired assistant deputy minister, responsible for procurement at DND in the early years of the F-35 project, and recently he shared his thoughts on the shortcomings of the tendering process with the Office of the Auditor-General.“The whole process was twisted to suit the needs of the military, with the acknowledgment and support of ministers. It was totally unacceptable,” he said.
He thinks the government should write a new statement of requirement and put the whole project out to an open competition.
“You could run a competition today and have it done within two years,” he said. “You’d have to be blind and deaf not to know how much this project has gone off the rails.”
He said that in his experience, maintenance costs on sophisticated military equipment run at two to three times acquisition costs. He believes the eventual cost to taxpayers for the F-35s is likely to be $25- to $30-billion — double the current government estimate.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
The 33-year public servant has no skin in this game, no clients, no political allegiances. “The only reason I’m doing this is to set the record straight and tell Canadians they’ve been misled,” he said. “The [F-35 purchase] process was completely hijacked and bastardized.”
In theory, the defence procurement process is simple — the military sets its requirements and then the procurement experts find the product that best meets those requirements.
However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.
The government has stuck to its line that the contract has been tendered; that Canadian companies are profiting from industrial benefits; that our allies have the F-35, so we need it too; and that it’s the best aircraft available.
Mr. Williams said every one of those arguments is flawed. For example, more industrial and regional benefits (IRBs) would accrue to Canadian companies from an open competition. “All bidders would have to provide IRBs equal to, or greater than, the value of the contract,” he said.
He has never downplayed the technical capabilities of the F-35, he said, but suggested we have sole sourced a plane without knowing what it can do or what it will cost to buy and maintain.
The F-35 experience does suggest a process that is out of control. And we know that it is not an isolated incident. Mr. Williams said that former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, once indicated to him that he wanted Chinook heavy lift helicopters. “I said to him, ‘don’t tell me that you want Chinooks, tell me your requirements’. Almost the day I left, they ordered Chinooks,” he said. These are the same Chinooks that are at least three years behind schedule and 100% over budget — the aircraft where former auditor-general Sheila Fraser said the deliberate understatement of risk by DND was “totally unacceptable.”
Chris Wattie/Reuters
Defence Minister Peter MacKay (R) and Industry Minister Tony Clement in front of a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter during a news conference in 2010 to announce the government's intention to purchase some of the jets.
Mr. Williams is outraged that the government wants to spend $30-billion of taxpayers’ money without even publishing the statement of requirement, which says what the air force needs and why it needs it. “It is unacceptable for any government not to share this information,” he said.
The whole F-35 saga reads like an episode of Yes, Minister, where the politicians pirouette to the tune played by the bureaucrats. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, was once asked how he knew the F-35 is the best aircraft available. The response was he read it in briefing notes provided by DND. Of course he did. The word on defence policy comes from Defence Department headquarters and it is home-made. Let’s hope the Auditor-General reminds the uniforms who pays the bills.
National Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)