First, consider the following from an earlier post:

…

The Canadian government says the production cost of each F-35 will average $74.5-million (U.S.) – but other obligations such as spare parts, simulators, and program management costs mean that the full package works out to $138-million per jet. It also estimates the annual maintenance price tag for the jets will total $250-million, on par with the current bill for the aging CF-18 planes…

Trusting blindly in what Lockheed Martin says has not proved a sensible thing to do so far.  The minister says there are no delays for the US Air Force’s F-35A version the government is planning to get?  And the delivery date for us won’t be affected?  Our first aircraft are supposed to arrive in 2016.  So we are going to get them before they’re in full operational USAF service, since “…development of the conventional take-off and landing F-35A and carrier-based F-35C will be extended by one year to 2017.”  Sure, Peter.

As for our cost per aircraft not rising.  In 2016/17 the plane will not be at full production rate (and probably not for a while thereafter).  Costs for early production aircraft are always greater than later on as economies of scale are achieved with increased rate of build and as the construction learning curve takes effect.   There is no way, if we buy the planes in the time-frame now envisaged by the government, that we will get them at a (comparatively) cheap full-rate production cost–which is what the $74.5 million (U.S.) price per plane must represent.  And we definitely will not get them cheaper than the USAF is paying…

If a competition were held fairly soon there is no way Lockheed Martin could win it. Price is the problem. The costs to the company for 2016-17-build F-35s are simply not known; thus it could not submit a firm contract price, to which it would be held under pain of penalty, that the Canadian government could afford from the money allocated for the competition. Any price low enough to fit within the competition would guarantee the company would take a loss on planes produced for Canada; they just are not going to cost Lockheed Martin less than $74.5 million each to make (remember the company needs to make a profit) in that time frame.

Moreover I do not believe the company could guarantee the delivery schedule the government says it needs to phase out the CF-18s as presently planned.  (For a real delivery schedule balls-up, read about the Air Force’s new Cyclone helicopters at this post.)

Meanwhile:

…
GasTOPS, an Ottawa firm that employs around 100, first announced it had won a $48-million contract with Hamilton Sundstrand, a key supplier on the fighter craft, in May 2009. The deal would see the Ottawa company provide its oil debris sensors for inclusion in 3,500 of the F-35 jets…

That 3,500 number sure do look dicey to me. And if there is anything in this speculation about re-starting Raptor production that number definitely goes up in, er, smoke:

The Air Force has apparently gotten over one of its biggest taboos: talking internally about the possibility of buying more F-22s.

Until recently, USAF was under strict orders not even to think about it, but recent developments have caused the possibility to crop up in some “what if” PowerPoint slides.

Those developments include likely further slips in the F-35 strike fighter’s schedule and an upcoming defense acquisition board review of the F-35 expected to be fraught with bad news on cost.

That would come on the heels of various deficit-cutting proposals that already suggest cutting the F-35 buy.

Without F-35, Air Force fighter inventories will plummet below minimums in coming years as F-16s age out.

Extending F-22 production could be the dealmaker if F-35 foes carry the day and compel USAF to take mostly new-build F-16s instead.

The Raptors would provide the extra stealth force required to make the non-stealthy F-16s acceptable.

Also, if you’ve listened carefully, USAF has gone from saying it will retain a “portion” of F-22 production tooling to “most” and, most recently, to “all.”..

Via Defense Industry Daily.  Keep in mind that it was defense secretary Robert Gates who finally forced the end of F-22 production.

But Mr Gates is likely to be stepping down pretty soon; and then there is that new, much more Republican, Congress–what will they want?  More here on the Raptor (and quite a bit on the F-35).  In any event the Americans are taking a very close and critical look at the F-35 program, the results should become evident next week.  One wonders if our government is paying close attention.  Maybe it doesn’t want to, very worried about the possible results.  One hopes our major media will pay that attention.

Update thought: Remember that both the F-22 and F-16 are made by Lockheed Martin; so there could be a lot of off-setting money for the company in those aircraft.

Upperdate: Note current costs still quite uncertain:

Lockheed Martin Corp. received a fourth production contract for 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets valued at $3.48 billion as the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program faces new questions over costs and delays.

Lockheed will build 16 planes for the U.S. Marine Corps configured for short takeoffs and vertical landings, 10 of the Air Force version of the jet, 4 Navy models and 1 for the U.K. [emphasis added], the Pentagon said today. The Bethesda, Maryland-based company has an option to assemble a 32nd aircraft for the Netherlands [emphasis added].

The award provides a boost to Lockheed on the eve of a Nov. 22 review of the JSF led by the Defense Department’s top arms buyer, Ashton Carter. Development and combat testing is running more than four years behind schedule on the F-35, a program with a projected price tag of $382 billion.

Lockheed and the Pentagon will share on a 50-50 basis all overruns topping the F-35’s “target price.” Lockheed would have absorb the entire overrun once the price exceeds an upper- limit “ceiling [emphasis added],” while any savings for beating the target price would be split between the company and the government.

The contract caps a month of negotiations in which the Pentagon sought to convert from an agreement that paid the company all expenses plus a fee for profit while requiring the government to cover any overruns. Those were the provisions for the first 3 JSF production lots of 2, 12 and 17 planes…

Next week’s Pentagon review of the JSF is the third such study in less than a year. Officials are supposed to receive details from an assessment conducted by the program manager, Vice Admiral David Venlet, as the Defense Department seeks to avoid “further surprises,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said yesterday.

No Decisions

Venlet “has discovered additional issues that are of concern,” Morrell said. There is more software code “left to be written than what we thought,” said Morrell, who declined to give details on any potential new costs or delays and said no decisions were likely at the session…

Mark
Ottawa

Further to the earlier post, there were in fact two Canadian Hornets, not one. From NORAD:

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. [more here] — Out of an abundance of caution, The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) [CF webpage here] diverted two Canadian CF-18’s from the 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron out of Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Quebec, to track a civilian aircraft determined to be an aircraft of interest as it flew into and over Canadian airspace. The civilian aircraft was passed to two U.S. F-15’s from the 104th Fighter Wing at Barnes Air National Guard Base, Mass., as it transited into U.S. airspace and to its ultimate destination at JFK airport where it landed without incident. The Canadian and U.S. fighters were under the continuous control of NORAD.

NORAD’s role – in close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners – is to prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the U.S. and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

NORAD is the bi-national Canadian and American command that is responsible for the air defense of North America and maritime warning. The command has three subordinate regional headquarters: the Alaskan NORAD Region at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; the Canadian NORAD Region at Winnipeg, Manitoba; and the Continental NORAD Region at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. The command is poised both tactically and strategically in our nation’s capital to provide a multilayered defense to detect, deter and prevent potential threats flying over the airspace of the United States and Canada.

Great circle route map (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

Mark
Ottawa

A Hornet:

Some of what they do:

A commercial passenger jet that was also carrying cargo from Yemen was escorted from the Canadian border to New York City by two military fighter jets, U.S. officials said. The officials said there was no known threat associated with the plane, but it was escorted to John F. Kennedy International Airport as a precaution…

John Cornelia, a spokesman for U.S. [actually Canadian too] North American Aerospace Defense Command, said the airliner was escorted by a Canadian fighter to the U.S. border, where two U.S. fighters took over. U.S. fighter jets routinely escort airliners when there may be a problem in order to observe the aircraft and be prepared to take any action if necessary.”..

The Hornet would be from Bagotville. Our fighters out west performed a similar mission this spring at Vancouver, video here.

More on our fighters’ intercept mission generally:

F-35s: Bilge from Byers

Mark
Ottawa

The good professor (amongst other things, see below) is now knotting his knickers over the possibility that Canada might start an arms race in the Arctic if we buy F-35s:

A government purchase of F-35 fighter jets could cause “angst in Russia” and trigger an Arctic arms race, Arctic sovereignty expert Michael Byers said Thursday.

“I don’t want my country to be the country that starts an Arctic arms race,” Byers said as debate over the government’s plan to spend $16 billion on 65 of the F-35s raged on several fronts on Parliament Hill.

Byers is chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia…

Perish the thought of causing Bad Vlad Putin any Angst (though the fellow certainly can surprise one, as with endorsing The Gulag Archipelago).

What a load of hooey. The F-35–or any other new Canadian fighter–can hardly start any Arctic arms race. The roles of Canadian fighters up there, and off our other coasts, are airspace surveillance, defence and interception. That’s what our current CF-18s do and what their replacements will do. No offensive role whatsoever so nothing for the Russians to race to defend against.

Moreover, the F-35′s radar-evading stealth is no advantage in those missions; there’s nothing for the Russians to counter since, as I wrote earlier:

…Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target…

Stealth fighters do not up the ante in terms of air defence against Russian bombers.  But I think Mischievous Michael knows that and is just trying to stir things up anyway. Not exactly intellectually honest, I’d say. But not unexpected.

The Postmedia News story identifies him as “chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.” That’s hardly a really informative identification.  It is indeed effectively misleading by making him seem the disinterested “expert” he is described as.  Take a look at this post to see where he (a defeated federal NDP candidate) and some of his buddies really are, as they say, coming from:

The major media, the Rideau Institute and, e.g., Steve Staples, Michael Wallace and Michael Byers…

A very committed crew of Rideau Institute advocates trying to push the view that the CF should essentially become a non-combat constabulary and peacekeeping organization. But, contrary to what Senator Pamela Wallin writes in her letter quoted in the post, Mischievous Michael unfortunately does not appear to be retired from active professing at the university.

By the way, as readers of this blog well know, I’m no fan of the way this government has committed to, and justified, acquiring the F-35.

Update: In reality:

Breaking:  CF-18 on the job

Mark
Ottawa

A photo from several at the Globe and Mail’s website featuring the base:

Pilot and Captain Mark Remington climbs out of his CF-18 in CFB Cold Lake.
(John Lehmann/The Globe and Mail)

Other fun at Cold Lake, with video:

Hornet vs. supercars

Mark
Ottawa

Earlier:

Revolting British admirals, generals and air marshals (and the F-35)/Only 40 F-35s Upperdate?

The Brits had been planning to buy 138 F-35Bs, the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version (our government is commited to buying the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version). The UK government has now announced the results of its Strategic Defense and Security Review (MoD news release here, full text here). A decision on the size of the F-35 fleet has been deferred for some time but it appears clear the total buy will be reduced, probably considerably, since only one of the Royal Navy’s new carriers will eventually field the aircraft, not both as originally planned. And the carrier F-35C version will be acquired instead of the F-35B, none of which will now be bought (see also Part Two, pp. 23, 26 of the “Review”):

…the government has decided to reduce its F-35 buy. Britain also will shift its carrier-based version to the F-35C, away from the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing B system. How many Lockheed Martin F-35s will be bought…remains to be sorted out. A defense official says those decisions may await the next defense review in five years time, leaving a lot of uncertainty over the program…

On the aircraft carrier side, the HMS Prince of Wales will be modified to allow operations of the F-35C, designed specifically for carrier-based operations…The carrier will be fielded four years later than planned, around 2020, when the aircraft also are slated to arrive. The HMS Queen Elizabeth will be held in reserve and may be sold, leaving the U.K. with a single carrier force in the future…

More:

…One of the carriers will be designed to operate with 12 of Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes.

“The single carrier will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers,” the review document said…

That leaves the US Marine Corps as the only buyer of the F-35B, looks like they’re planning on 262 operational aircraft. In any event that pool of international JSF sales, from which our government hopes the Canadian aviation industry will make out like bandits, is starting to shrink.

The British review is far more comprehensive, detailed and specific–in terms of what things the government intends that its military services be capable of doing, and of what personnel levels, as well as types and numbers of equipment, are needed to do them–than anything you’ll see from this or any likely future Canadian government.  A previous post:

The Canadian Forces, war present, and future?

By the way, the UK is planning to acquire an ice patrol ship (p. 21 of “Review”). Somehow I don’t think we’ll be able to sell them the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships intended for our Navy, whenever we get around to building them.

Update: Round-up piece from Defense Industry Daily:

Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

Upperdate thought: With the loss of the 138 F-35Bs planned for the Brits, the cost of the ones the USMC is to buy will certainly go up, perhaps substantially. One wonders how many the Marines will get in the end [Oct. 25: more here on the Marines and the F-35B, and on the Marines' future generally].

Uppestdate thought: And, heavens to Betsy Ross, depending on the F-35C’s testing progress and eventual cost, might the UK’s sole carrier end up with Super Hornets?  The US Navy will still be buying them for a while to come (Oct. 21: Lockheed Martin’s competitors are sniffing wider opportunities). Or, gasp!, maybe the navalized Rafale? Interoperability!  Une entente aérienne!

After all there have been suggestions of increased Anglo-French naval cooperation. Meanwhile, here’s a quick but substantial US reaction to the British defence cuts.

Beyond Uppestdate: Post is in the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
…
Mark Collins — Unambiguously Ambidextrous
How many F-35s?…

Mark
Ottawa

Still three years after Canada (the Brits plan to be out by 2015 but only “based on success on the ground”):

Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister said its 3,400 troops will have left the country by 2014.

The Italian decision follows the withdrawal of Dutch troops earlier this year and the Canadian decision to leave next year, as commanders struggle to sure up an alliance which is still short of troops…

…summer 2011 for the start of a gradual drawdown of troops, with the intention of completing it by 2014,” he told an Italian newspaper.

Barack Obama’s announcement that American troops will also begin returning in July 2011 has been criticised for giving the Taliban hope they can simply wait for Nato to leave.

The Nato mission is still short of several hundred soldiers to train the Afghan forces [more here, no help to be expected from our government] supposed to replace them and Nato officials have been trying to persuade alliance members to stop announcing withdrawal dates.

And in the meantime the Italians are considering getting more aerially robust than us–our government has never even been willing to deploy our CF-18s:

Italy considers bombings after Afghan deaths

The defence minister said Sunday that he is considering authorizing bombings by Italian fighter jets in Afghanistan if Parliament backs the decision following the killing of four soldiers there.

Minister Ignazio La Russa told Sky TG24 TV Sunday that while Italy’s participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan can’t change “from one day to the other,” its fighter jets must be able to bomb if necessary.

La Russa has withheld permission for aerial bombings in order to avoid mistakenly killing innocent civilians.

Four Italian soldiers died Saturday in a bomb and shooting attack on a convoy…

Update: Germans fighting in the north–in self-defence:

The Battle of Shahabuddin
Under Fire in Afghanistan’s Baghlan Province

One German officer fights the Taliban alongside Afghan soldiers he can’t always count on, risking his life for a peace few Germans believe is possible. Germans have seen the largest battles since World War II in Baghlan Province, and their leader is more optimistic than most about the war…

…
“I look the Afghans in the eyes every day. We have taken on a responsibility here,” says Andritzky, who has grown a beard for the mission. The Afghans like it, he says. He wears a checkered scarf around his neck, a gift from an Afghan soldier. “We can’t let the Afghans down, or else it’ll all have been in vain [emphasis added].”..

More on the north at the second part of this post.

Upperdate: The French, who do have a combat role, may be making progress:

FORWARD OPERATING BASE TORA, Afghanistan — Just east of Kabul lies a stark mountain moonscape that for centuries was home to gunmen who preyed on travelers and harassed invaders in the narrow mountain passes. As recently as last year, ambushes of NATO troops were not uncommon.

Now, the French soldiers responsible for the area say they believe that the situation has calmed so much that by next summer or even earlier, they would be comfortable handing primary responsibility for this district, Sarobi, in eastern Kabul Province, to Afghan troops.

“Of course this is a political decision, but the district of Sarobi could be transferred to Afghan control not later than the summer of 2011; I think even by February it could be ready,” said Brig. Gen. Pierre Chavancy, the commander of Task Force Lafayette [actually La Fayette], the French brigade in Afghanistan with 2,500 soldiers…

The French battalion commander in charge of Sarobi, Col. Jerome Goisque, whose Forward Operating Base Tora looks out across the mountains and whose soldiers patrol its valleys, is more reserved. He said it would probably not be possible for a foreign civilian to travel on the roads. “It is quiet, but sometimes you have ambushes or exchanges of fire,” he said. “But if we were not there it would be worse.”..

Naturally we see nothing about the Italians, Germans or French in our blinkered major media.

Mark
Ottawa

Industry minister Tony Clement was interviewed (complete video at right on link) Sept. 21 on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics about the government’s decision to buy the F-35.  Almost all the discussion was about future Canadian industrial participation in the fighter’s production; nothing was said by the minister (nor interviewer Evan Solomon) about what military roles the government expects the F-35 to perform and what capabilities are required for them.  What choosing the plane is all about: for the government it’s the economy–and jobs and votes–stupid, not really the CF:

Industry Minister Tony Clement insisted on Tuesday that the government’s plan to spend $9 billion on 65 fighter jets would ensure that Canadian companies aren’t ignored from future defence contracts relating to the purchase.

During an interview Tuesday on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Clement spoke about a 2006 memorandum of understanding [text here, section 7.3, p. 48, seems to be the key; it does say that industries in countries actually buying the aircraft do in fact have preferential status--but subject to "best value", which rather muddies things] signed by Ottawa and a number of other countries regarding the U.S-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and the purchase of a new generation of fighter jets.

Clement said that according to the memo, the aerospace industries of countries ordering the planes get a preferred line on bidding for some of the contracting work to build components of the jet.

He referred to one section of the memo that states participants in the JSF program require the main contractor of the jets to select subcontractors from participating nations, “on a competitive, best value basis to the maximum practical extent.”

But a 2008 news release issued by then industry minister Jim Prentice [text here] appeared to suggest that Canada did not have to purchase the planes to obtain preferential treatment for its aerospace companies.

It stated that Canada’s participation in the program still “makes it eligible to benefit from the preferential condition and advantages reserved for JSF partners.”

The news release added that “this participation does not commit it to purchase the aircraft.”

Asked about the 2008 release, and the fact that it seemed to contradict Clement’s interpretation, Clement said the release made no sense to him and that he would talk to Prentice about it at the first opportunity.

Clement insisted however that the memo states that “in order to have preferential access to the bidding process, you have to be a participating country.”..

There’s much more detail about the MoU in the video; CBC did some good and serious research. The following is from a December 2006 story by the American Forces Press Service:

Canada, Australia, U.K. Sign Joint Strike Fighter Agreements

With the first flight of the Joint Strike Fighter set for this week, Canada, the United Kingdom
and Australia have “re-enlisted” for the program.

Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase during a Pentagon ceremony here yesterday. Australia signed on today as part of the U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings at the State Department, and the United Kingdom signed at a Pentagon ceremony today.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Defense Department’s program for a “multi-role” stealth air-to-ground strike aircraft. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and allies are developing the system together.

Canadian Deputy Defense Minister Ward Elcock and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a memorandum of understanding that calls on Canada to pledge $150 million toward production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Canada already has contributed $150 million to the system-development and demonstration portion of the program…

Elcock stressed that the program demonstrates how well the United States and Canada can work together. “The program will allow the United States and Canada to continue to benefit from each others’ wealth of technology and expertise,” he said.

Canada expects to retire its CF-18 fleet sometime after 2017, Elcock said. “Canada needs to explore what it needs from the next generation of fighter aircraft,” he said. “Our continued involvement in this project will help us determine our future fighter requirements for the Canadian Forces [so no commitment to buy at that time either]. Certainly, one capability we know we want to have is interoperability with the United States and our allies.”..

Earlier:

Canada and the F-35: Not much news here about possibility of a competition/Peter MacKay Update

The US Marine Corps, the F-35, and the Super Hornet–4.5 for Canada?

F-35: Video of Gov’t ministers before Commons’ national defence committee/Real reason for decision Update

Update: Round-up article from Defense Industry Daily:

Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

Plus a balanced comment at Milnet.ca:

In fairness to Industry Minister Tony Clement, he is supposed to talk about industrial benefits and Canadian industry participation in the programme. Defence Minister Peter MacKay is supposed to explain the defence requirements and why the JSF is the answer to a military maiden’s prayers.

And see the following comment, relevant to this:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?/Canada and the F-35 competition Update

US Upperdate: Thirty aircraft for Americans, note just one firm foreign sale, no price per plane given:

Pentagon, Lockheed sign F-35 contract

As for the Dutch (and Danes):

While the US government has completed negotiations with Lockheed Martin covering the fourth low rate initial production (LRIP) batch of F-35s, discussions about the price of the engines – covered by a separate contract – are not complete. This was disclosed by the Netherlands Ministry of Defense in a letter to Parliament yesterday [Sept. 23].

Despite Lockheed Martin’s predictions of bargain prices, the Dutch government is still bracing for higher-than-expected costs.

The defense ministry says that it is still waiting for US government’s approved CAPE cost estimate for the F-35A. (CAPE figures so far lump the three variants together.) However, the defense ministry has told parliament that it it is working with the JSF Program Office and its own government auditors to analyze the cost of the Dutch program. “To all appearances, the impact on the F-16 replacement project will be considerable,” parliament is told.

The ministry has also formally confirmed to Parliament that, if the JSF buy is approved by the next government [emphasis added], first production deliveries will be slipped to 2016 from 2014, in line with the delayed completion of development testing announced in March.

This follows Denmark’s decision to delay its own [F-35] fighter program…

More Dutch details:

September 24: In a statement to the Dutch parliament, the Minister of Defence Eimert van says that the cost of the F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force faces a “considerable increase” and that the impact on the F-16 Replacement Project will also be “considerable”.

Van Middelkoop said that since the last report in 2009 the average cost per aircraft has risen from $69.2 million (€51.4 million) to $92.4 million (€68.6 million). To offset some of this cost the Dutch Ministry of Defence has pushed back the first delivery two years from 2014 to 2016.

Current plans are for 85 F-35As to be purchased in two batches (57 and 28 aircraft) to replace the entire F-16 fleet of 100 aircraft.

Why cannot (or will not) our government gives us any serious estimate of our price per plane?  Interesting also, is it not, that the Netherlands–a very small country geographically and with half our population–is planning to buy more new fighters than Canada?

Mark
Ottawa

Further to the Upperdate at this post,

Why we need F-35s, or, do the Russians have a radar that can reach Cold Lake?/Nuclear Voodoo Update thought/Boys in blue ties Upperdate

the government sure keeps trying to get those votes in Québec:

Deal keeps Mirabel firm aloft
$468-million accord with fees Contract to maintain CF-18 fighter jets would save 500 jobs, L-3 MAS says

L-3 MAS (Canada) Inc. of Mirabel pocketed a $468-million cheque from Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday for the last contract to maintain Canada’s aging fleet of 78 CF-18 fighter jets.

The deal runs to 2017, with possible extensions to 2020 that would add $86 million to the contract’s value and maintain 500 jobs at L-3 MAS’s Mirabel plant.

After the elaborate photo op and announcement ceremony -at which Harper answered briefly to only five questions -L-3 MAS president Sylvain Bedard told reporters that without the agreement, his company would have had to fire 500 employees…

But the bigger prize by far still eludes L-3 MAS, the Canadian subsidiary of New York City-based L-3 Communications, a major global provider of aircraft maintenance and modernization services.

That would be a deal to service the CF-18′s successor, the 65 Joint Strike Fighter CF-35s the federal government recently agreed to buy from Lockheed Martin for $9 billion. The maintenance and servicing clause of that deal is worth another $7 billion.

In a brief interview, National Defence Minister Peter Mackay said L-3 MAS “certainly has the inside track (to snag the CF-35 deal), especially after the job they’ve done (on the CF-18) all these years.”

“The great thing is that they would be in line not just for the 65 (CF-35s), but possibly for other armed forces as well. I mean, (Lockheed Martin) sold 3,000 of those things.”..

Via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.

I mean, those jet fuel fumes really are getting to poor Peter’s brain if he thinks other countries are going to give up their own pork to have their F-35s maintained in Canada Québec. And if he believes Lockheed Martin has actually sold 3,000 F-35s he’s truly in cloud cukoo land; he might do well to read this post:

Fighter sales prospects

Plus the “…F-35 fact check Update” here.

Update: More Conservative pork-o-mania here and here, via John Robson.  Dig the audio of his weekly Friday morning interview at CFRA Ottawa this morning, today on the nth resurrection of the Palestinian peace “process”, Iraq, Afstan, health care run by central planning–plus the federal government’s seeming insatiable propensity for pushing pork.  Mr Robson is a rare Canadian who can speak with real knowledge, fierce intelligence, and wicked wit.

Upperdate: I won’t link to this Ottawa Citizen story,

Russian planes don’t often fly into Canadian territory: Documents

since the only “expert” it quotes is St. Steve Staples.

Mark
Ottawa

Or Bagotville?  That seems to be what the Chief of the Air Staff is suggesting:

Canada needs stealth fighter jets so its military can sneak up on an adversary at the edges of domestic airspace and use that potential for surprise as a deterrent, the head of the air force says.

Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, the chief of the air staff, responded to critics of the government’s planned purchase of high-tech F-35 stealth fighters by asserting that the aircraft will provide a needed capability for defence at home, and not just for fighting air battles abroad.

“If they can’t detect us and don’t know where we are, it dramatically changes their potential tactics. So it is a deterrent,” Gen. Deschamps said in an interview with The Globe and Mail…

The Harper government has pointed to recent flights of Russian long-range bombers near Canadian airspace in the Arctic and off the east coast – intercepted by CF-18s [more here, here, and here]– to assert the need for top-notch fighters.

Gen. Deschamps said he’s not seeking to amplify “the noise around the Russians,” but pointed to the interceptions to argue that the F-35s will let the Canadian Forces observe foreign planes unseen, and the potential surprise will deter interlopers.

“Nobody expects somebody to come in and roll ashore here in the next little while,” he said. “But it’s a question of being able to exercise your sovereignty. And you can’t do that sitting on the runway saying, ‘I wish I could go out there without these guys knowing I’m going to be there two hours before the intercept point [emphasis added].’”..

Now our fighters are based at Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, Quebec–and will continue to be stationed there when we get new ones. I do not think the Russians have any radars capable of detecting aircraft on the those runways–nor even at, say Yellowknife, N.W.T, if temporarily stationed there. Nor do I think any Russian radars are likely to detect Canadian fighters en route to an interception near our nothern, and particularly, our eastern, or western airspace approaches (see this superb site).

Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target.

So why the need for stealth in the air defence/sovereignty protection role? I don’t see it.  Neither does the RAF, which will be using its Eurofighter Typhoons for air defence, not F-35s (whenever it gets them).  In any event our fighters’ radar that tracks the bomber will likely alert the bomber, so stealth is simply irrelevant.

More from the CAS:

…
Deschamps said Canada is expected to pay between $70 million and $75 million per aircraft and the price will be locked in once Ottawa signs a final agreement, likely in 2014.

The air force examined other choices, including an improved version of the CF-18 and the Eurofighter [more on those planes, and some F-35 info here], but the Lightning II proved to be the best all-round aircraft, he said.

However, the chief of air staff would not say what the price difference between the various aircraft might be, citing the confidentiality of the competing aircraft makers…

There’s also been concern that the Lightning II is not suitable for close air support bombing [those are stupid critics, after all it's the Joint Strike Fighter and attacking ground targets is its primary mission], a critical role given the country’s recent experience in Afghanistan ["critical" for our Air Force?-- the government has not even been willing to deploy CF-18s to Afstan to support the CF and allied forces there].

The F-35 can bomb and strafe targets on the ground, but Deschamps said unmanned combat aerial vehicles are increasingly taking on that function.

He said the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.

For which I just do not see the requirement for stealth.  Meanwhile some sense from Jack Granatstein:

In a slow summer for serious political matters, the announcement that Canada will buy 65 F-35 fighter jets at a cost (including maintenance) of $16-billion has upset the opposition parties and critics of the government’s defence policy. For its part, the Harper government did little to help itself by having the Defence Minister talk about how pilots like fast aircraft and that acquiring them would help recruiting [more here]. The Prime Minister’s press secretary also didn’t help much when he announced that, if it hadn’t been for Canada’s CF-18s, two Russian bombers would have invaded across the Pole. It really is the summer silly season.

…if we don’t mount sovereignty patrols in our airspace, who will? The answer is all too clear: the U.S. Air Force. Does anyone want to have American pilots flying over Canada to check out Russian bombers? Can Canada be a sovereign state if the defence of its most basic national interest is provided by another country? We will surely require some aircraft to do such patrols for the foreseeable future…

I don’t know whether the F-35 is the best fighter for our needs. But I do know that Canada has national interests and that these will always need to be defended and advanced. I do know that Canada must always be able to undertake surveillance over its own territory and to be prepared to turn away Russian bombers on training missions today or some other nation’s aircraft on more mischievous operations tomorrow. And I accept that, at some point, Canada may again decide to send its military abroad to work with our allies…

J.L. Granatstein is a historian and a senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Earlier, with great detail:

Canada’s new fighter, the F-35: What the government is and isn’t saying

Update thought: If the government were really concerned about effective air defence–as opposed to scarifying ursine PR ops–they might remember (hah!), from a time when air defence was taken seriously: the CF-101B, non-stealthy, Voodoo with nuclear-armed Genie missiles. From a previous post:

…
We don’t in fact need the capabilities of the F-35 to intercept subsonic Bears. Our current Hornets–which will need replacing, lot’s more here–seem to be doing just fine, do they not?  Then there was the CF-101 Voodoo which our Air Force flew for a quarter century:

…F-101B’s based in alert hangars were sent out on air defence missions. These were usually in reply to unknown intrusions into the air defence identification zone by wayward airliners or Soviet reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-95 Bear. Aircraft were usually sent out in pairs. One aircraft would do an identification pass on the unknown while the second one stayed behind, ready to employ the AIM-4 if required. With respect to Soviet reconnaissance flights, one Bear would encounter several different pairs of NATO and NORAD interceptors during it’s flight from the western USSR to Cuba…

E.g:

Not that one is suggesting we should have kept the Voodoo (more photos here) in service.

Update: …

Plus some comment at Milnet.ca on the other, more modern, Russian strategic bomber (a few more may be produced) which the comparatively clueless Conservatives forgot (or did not know about) to mention as part of their threat hyping.

Upperdate: Meanwhile photo op and a whiff of political pork:

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper sits in the cockpit of a CF-18 fighter jet with Major Daniel Dionne in Mirabel, Quebec, September 1, 2010.
SHAUN BEST/REUTERS

And some speculation on what will happen to the UK’s plans for the F-35. Not a subject the government appears to be interested in.

Mark
Ottawa