6

F-35s for our Air Force in 2016? Good flipping luck

Further to,

…F-35 Update

this is what our government is saying:

Canadian officials defend F-35 jets

Canadian officials leapt to the defence of the controversial F-35 military jet Thursday after significant concerns were raised with the stealth fighter earlier in the day in Washington.

While U.S. concerns are specific to one particular vertical lift model, Canadian critics say ongoing cost overruns and lengthy delays should raise a red flag for a Conservative government determined to spend billions on the U.S.-made planes.

“I say without hesitation … this is the only aircraft for the future,” said Major General Tom Lawson, assistant chief of the air staff, who insisted the proven conventional model Canada is buying should not be confused with the short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) under the gun in the U.S.

The Harper government is pushing ahead with plans to buy 65 F-35 jets at a total cost of $9 billion, which could jump to about $16 billion when service costs are factored in. Delivery of the first jets is not scheduled until 2016.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates earlier told a news conference the joint strike fighter program has received special scrutiny given its “substantial cost” and “ongoing development issues” as part of the planned U.S. military budget cuts.

Gates announced the Marine Corps’s F-35 STOVL version has been put on a two-year “probation” to get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule…

Lawson said development of the conventional F-35 has been advancing well and “it’s from that that I take great promise with this program and great confidence in it.”

The general said Canada is “buffered somewhat” from any further delays in the delivery of the F-35s because the recently upgraded CF-18s provide “manoeuvre space in when we would purchase aircraft. So, if required, we might be able to extend the final date of service of the F-18 [bit of hedge there].”..

The Parliamentary Budget Office is to issue a report next month on Canada’s proposed F-35 purchase.

“We are monitoring developments regarding F-35 development. We will look at input and life-cycle cost estimates. We are working with colleagues in the U.S. and the U.K.,” parliamentary budget watchdog Kevin Page told the Star

That should be very interesting. It is true that the F-35A the government intends to purchase has had a lot less testing trouble than the F-35B. But now for some serious details, not reported in our media, that will affect delivery dates and almost certainly increase the cost of the planes– since production will ramp up more slowly–in 2016 (or whenever, depending on how well F-35A testing does progress in reality).

1) Defense Technology’s “Ares” blog:

…Gates has decided to keep FY2012 (Lot 5) low-rate production of the F-35 to 32 aircraft, the same level as 2011, versus the planned 42 aircraft, although progress of the F-35A and F-35C has been “satisfactory”.

Update: Satisfactory or not, the completion of systems development and demonstration (SDD) is delayed to early 2016, versus mid-2015 as planned in the restructuring of the program early last year.

SDD finishes with the conclusion of development testing and precedes initial operational testing and evaluation, so this probably pushes initial operational capability into 2017 [emphasis added]. (The individual services are assessing their IOC dates.) This will cost an additional $4.6 billion.

The production ramp will also be flattened out, cutting another 124 aircraft out of LRIP, through the ninth batch, in addition to the 122 removed last year.

A total of 41 more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets will be acquired [emphasis added, see here also], alongside 150 life-extended F/A-18C/Ds, to fill Marine and Navy squadrons as a hedge against late JSF deliveries [and note that the Navy's F-35C has had "satisfactory" progress]…

2) Fort Worth (where the F-35 is built) Star-Telegram:

Defense secretary proposes cutting 124 F-35 purchases

Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined a five-year plan Thursday to reduce defense spending by $78 billion, including a dramatic cut in purchases of the F-35 joint strike fighter.

After more than a year of reviews of the oft-delayed and over-budget program, the Pentagon now plans to order 325 jets between 2012 and 2016, 124 fewer than anticipated a few months ago.

Gates’ plan would significantly slow production increases at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth factory and likely affect the company’s plans for hiring workers over that time.

Lockheed has been anticipating about 200 foreign orders during that period, but most of those nations are also dealing with budget problems and worried about rising F-35 costs… [But not our government, at least publicly.  And it still claims up to 5,000 F-35s will be built, from which Canadian industry will make huge bucks.  That's the real reason the government, as opposed to the Air Force, wants the plane--the hoped-for jobs and votes.]

Gates’ proposals will be included in the proposed 2012 defense budget submitted to Congress next month. Of the money saved by buying fewer jets, $4.6 billion would pay for continued development and testing…

The Pentagon now has 61 early-production F-35s on order. It was expecting to buy another 43 with the 2011 budget, but Congress has not yet appropriated the funds and has indicated wanting fewer planes…

Yet our government professes to see blue skies ahead.

Update: A version of this post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog.

Mark
Ottawa

6 Responses so far.

  1. Plant GuyNo Gravatar says:

    I can’t figure out why the government is so attached to this particular plane. I have yet to hear a rational reason why this is the only plane that will meet our future needs. It is a first stike,shock and awe fighter most suitable to front line duties. I’ve never heard of it being called an exceptional patrol plane, a duty that probably would make up the majority of it’s duties. I have heard , however, that the military wants it because it’s the latest and greatest thing.My son wants a Ferrari for the same reason, but drives a pickup truck because that’s what he actually needs.Boys and their toys are a poor excuse to spend 16 billion dollars.

  2. MarkOttawaNo Gravatar says:

    As I noted in the post the government is bewitched by the prospects of big contracts for Canadian industry and hence it hopes lots of jobs and votes. Which is a huge riverboat gamble since the number of planes likely to be built seems to me a lot fewer than the “up to 5,000″ the government loves to mention (more on the gamble below). See also this from industry minister Clement Dec. 28:
    http://www.windsorstar.com/business/program+will+bring+jobs/4031043/story.html

    “…There are $12 billion in identified opportunities for Canadian firms in the agreements between the government of Canada and prime F-35 contractors. And this is just for aircraft production work…

    Industry has told us time and again that uncertainty about Canada’s commitment to the global F-35 program would hurt their chances to access high-value, long-term work…

    The Harper government remains firm in our decision to acquire the F-35 to ensure our military has the best tools, and to support a stronger aerospace sector with jobs for our talented workforce.”

    Unlike the normal industrial and regional benefits for major military contracts–foreign manufacturer to spend an amount in Canada equal to the value of the contract–there are no such guarantees in this case. Thus the gamble.
    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/05240.html

    In fact, as far as I can see, the gov’t has no real interest in the actual capabilities of the aircraft, nor in defining the actual missions/purposes it is needed for.

    Mark
    Ottawa

  3. JoeFrmEdmNo Gravatar says:

    Mark you shoiuld know better F35B is STOVL and is different then the F35A which we are buying…

  4. MarkOttawaNo Gravatar says:

    From the post: “It is true that the F-35A the government intends to purchase has had a lot less testing trouble than the F-35B.”

    Mark
    Ottawa

  5. KellyNo Gravatar says:

    I think the government should have a couple squadrons of each as a hedge. Money really shouldn’t be the primary concern here, only giving our guys the very best.