…just like the US one (and all other prospective buyers).  The end of a post yesterday:

“Rivals Target JSF”/ More on why Update
…
Meanwhile our government claims our F-35s will cost 74.5 million each.  Sure.  The most recent limited production batch for the US have prices (without engines) of around $150 million each, it would seem.

Now we see the government finally coming somewhat clean:

…
[David] Burt [director for air requirements] conceded the $70-million to $78-million price tag per plane is not guaranteed. It could rise or fall, he said, depending on the timing of the delivery. Lockheed Martin has only recently started the F-35′s mass-production process. The earlier the slot in which an aircraft is produced, the more costly it is [emphasis added, our government says the Air Force will start receiving the planes in 2016--when full-rate production will just be starting and the full-rate price will therefore be at its highest].

Burt added that commodities prices and other factors could also drive up prices. “But they could also drive prices down,” he noted.

Talk about grasping at refuelling nozzles:

Does anyone really think the acquisition costs for 65 aircraft will stay anywhere near the $9 billion the government has budgeted? So how many F-35s might the Air Force end up with if the government does not add more money (most unlikely under continuing budget pressures)?  Our slowly shrinking fighter force–unless we hold a competition?

And note this from 2008, and how our government is now being exceedingly economical with the truth when it says the F-35 was somehow selected under the Liberal government in 2001 as a result of the American JSF competition:

Canada Lowers Number Of Planned Fighters

Canada has reduced the number of new fighters it plans to purchase to 65 from 80, and stresses that it has not formally selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) despite having participated in its development…

Despite the widespread and understandable assumption that Harper was referring to the F-35, Canada has not yet selected its next fighter, the DND emphasizes. Like several of the international participants in the JSF program, Ottawa plans to evaluate other candidate combat aircraft before making a decision, which is required by 2012.

Yet the government rushed to a decision two years early in 2010; this, I think, is the reason.

Update: A version of the post is at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds Blog. Below is a list of contributors to the blog, weird:

David Bercuson
Douglas Bland
Derek Burney
Paul Chapin
Mark Collins
Mark Entwistle
Jack Granatstein
Colin Robertson
Hugh Segal

Upperdate: Tom Burbage, Executive Vice-President and General Manager F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Integration, will be appearing at 1530 this afternoon before the Commons’ Standing Committee on National Defence, video will be here. Somehow one doubts the discussion will be terribly informative or to the point.  One suspects there will a great concentration on jobs (pork) from all parties.

Uppestdate: No video, only audio.  The opposition parties performed better than the government, asking a fair number of fairly substantive questions as opposed to the Conservatives’ cheerleading ones.  Though no MP seemed to have a serious grasp of the related issues involved.

Mr Burbage held to the LM “all is well” party line, as indeed he would, wouldn’t he? He did make clear that Canada would pay the same price per plane as the US for the A model (unless there is Canadianization, e.g., for method of aerial refuelling).  He maintained that the $74.5 million per plane price, for deliveries starting in 2016, was well inside the ballpark. But that depends on the numbers in actual US full-rate production at that time, does it not?

No-one knows what the production rate will actually be in 2016 (if we actually start receiving the aircraft then); therefore Mr Burbage cannot really know the price per plane then. That depends on unknown US government–administration and Congress–decisions. So our government cannot know the real costs when even the Americans do not.

As for industrial benefits, Mr Burbage made it clear that the gazillions Canadian companies are touted to make by our government depend completely on total F-35 sales world-wide. And those are increasingly unclear, both in the US and elsewhere, think of those European budget crunches. So the industrial winnings remain a crap-shoot.

There are an awful lot of assumptions in play.  Mr Burbage (an intelligent and informed professional, what he must have made of our MPs) also made it clear that Canada had no substantive role in the 2001 competitive selection of the F-35 by the US, and that Canada was in no wise committed by that selection.  Not the line our government has been spinning.

Meanwhile at the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
…

Mark Collins — The 3Ds Blog
F-35’s final cost is unknown – More…

Beyond Uppestdate: Our media simply regurgitate Mr Burbage’s opening statement. Pathetic reporting:

Canada could lose out on billions in contracts if F-35 deal yanked: Lockheed Martin

U.S. jet exec shoots down criticisms of F-35

The Brits, for their part, are reducing their planned F-35 buy, probably severely. UK companies have the largest share of non-US F-35 work. Will that be reduced with the Brits’ much smaller F-35 acquisition? That’s what Mr Burbage said would happen to Canadian companies if we do not buy the F-35.  And if we do buy the plane will our firms pick up some of that UK business? That would follow Mr Burbage’s logic.  One wishes an MP had asked the question; and one wishes our media would.

A final note on developments abroad:

JSF in Crosshairs of Dutch Defense Review
…
Dutch defense minister Hans Hillen says the F-16 replacement program — effectively the purchase of F-35s — will be part of the larger review of force structure in light of planned reductions in defense spending…

The Dutch are slated to buy 85 aircraft, but there has been much talk about reducing that figure to slightly more than 50 units.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pressure Lockheed Martin for cost reductions.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

What a US Navy carrier is for/Super Hornets and F-35s

I suggest readers take a look at this (read the whole piece, please) at Aviation Week and Space Technology’s “Ares” blog:

With the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program likely to be hit by further delays on top of the 13-month slip in development announced in February, competitors are beginning to see hope for the future despite tight budgets worldwide. The JSF program office canceled an appearance at Defense IQ’s October fighter conference here. People talking about other programs, though, were no longer shy about benchmarking their favorite jets against the ambitious U.S.-led project, now five years behind its original schedule with a sixth in the offing.

Another conference theme was a broader definition of capability, beyond a simplistic “generation” standard based on platform design. Many new or modernized fighters are acquiring a range of capabilities introduced in the last decade, including active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, high-definition targeting pods, the ability to release multiple guided weapons at separate targets in a single pass, and helmet-mounted displays. So-called “non-stealthy” aircraft are using a combination of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures and new-technology jamming based on digital radio frequency memory (RF) to defeat RF-guided weapons…

…Boeing is becoming more open about targeting the F-35C—the most vulnerable version of the aircraft, according to company executives—with a pincer strategy, with an improved F/A-18 in the near term and a Next-Generation Air Dominance platform further out.

First discussed at Farnborough, the improved Super Hornet features conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) above the body and a low RCS weapon pod for the centerline station, and would use more powerful (and already demonstrated) F414 engines. These are related: the CFTs restore the fuel lost with the centerline tank—with less transonic drag—and more thrust improves the Hornet’s transonic acceleration, which is not its strong point today.

It will also carry an internal infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, with Boeing calling IRST “the AESA of the 2010s” because of the technical improvements in newer systems. (The F-35 has an IRST function built into its electro-optical sensor, but advocates of a dedicated IRST say a scanning long-wave system outperforms a staring midwave sensor.) Boeing now says publicly that the Super Hornet “could be a bridge to the next airplane.”

That next airplane, in Boeing’s view, will be distinguished by greater range, as a counter to the development of antiaccess and area-denial weapons such as China’s antiship ballistic missile and long-range air-launched cruise missiles. It will also feature more advanced stealth technology than the F-35C—Boeing’s publicly revealed concept is tailless—to offset advanced air-defense weapons and counter-stealth technology.

European fighter producers are also pushing back against U.S. assumptions of superiority…

Update: More reasons for the targeting (note the $92 million price per plane assumes current production plans–which seem increasingly like pie in the sky; links in original):

The Pentagon won’t pay more for Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Joint Strike Fighter, which has almost doubled in cost to $92 million a jet, the defense acquisitions chief said today.

“We’ve got to get the cost growth under control,” Ashton Carter said today at a conference in New York. “Those who work on the Joint Strike Fighter know full well that is the expectation. I believe it is something that can be done, but I am not happy with the situation we find ourselves in.”

The original estimate of the F-35’s cost, in 2002, was $50 million a plane. The higher expense “may drive away customers,” Carter said…

The F-35, already about four years behind schedule, “is at that stage that is always difficult, the transition from development to production,” Carter said. It’s particularly challenging since there’s substantial overlap between construction and testing, he said.

“The inevitable consequence is that we discover things in test that have to be fixed,” Carter said. “You try to manage that.”

The Pentagon has maintained an option to purchase more F- 18s, built by Boeing Co., if development of the F-35 falters. The number of F-18s was reduced in 1997 during the F-35’s early development, and Boeing eventually lost the competition to build that aircraft to Lockheed.

Chicago-based Boeing monitors the F-35’s progress and can supply more F-18 Super Hornets or F-15 Strike Eagles to the military if needed, Dennis Muilenburg, head of Boeing’s defense unit, said in a New York interview. The Super Hornet has a per-unit cost of less than $50 million and cutting-edge technology, he said [emphasis added, he should know about the price].

“We know our customers have significant challenges right now on how they fit the capability they need into a limited budget,” Muilenburg said. “If there’s a desire to increase the size of the Super Hornet fleet, we are well prepared and equipped to do that.”

Meanwhile our government claims our F-35s will cost 74.5 million each.  Sure.  The most recent limited production batch for the US have prices (without engines) of around $150 million each, it would seem.

Mark
Ottawa

Sending a message, and anything else deemed necessary.  The USS George Washington is now conducting exercises with the South Koreans (more here), with Carrier Air Wing Five (CVW-5) on board.  It’s worth noting that the only fighter/attack aircraft in the wing are Hornets and Super Hornets.

It’s also worth noting that the USN will be acquiring Super Hornets for a few more years:

The F-35 and the fighters the US Navy still is buying…

And if the F-35 program keeps getting delayed and if costs don’t start coming down–see here, here and here–the USN could well end up keeping the Super Hornet line open even longer as things develop (or not) regarding its planned F-35C purchase, see end of this post.

Here’s a video of the USS John C. Stennis at work. Its F-14s have been retired from service and replaced by the Super Hornet:

Mark
Ottawa

Conference of Defence Associations’ media round-up.  I’ve excerpted the F-35 pieces:

…
In the Globe and Mail, Harry Swain, former deputy minister of Industry Canada, examines the number of  F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that Canada intends to purchase. Swain contends that Canada will buy 65 because this is the exact number the CF requires to achieve this capability. He notes that the silence from senior brass who determined that number was needed suggests that, “$16-billion was the biggest number they could get away with, not the smallest number of planes we need.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-eco…

In Le Devoir, Alec Castonguay reports that the regional economic benefits that will come with the procurement of the F-35 are considerably overstated by the Conservative government. The government reports that there will be up to $12 billion in economic benefits, however American sources suggest that these benefits will be closer to $3.9 billion with a possible peak at $6.3 billion.
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/311543/retombees-economiques-du-f-35…

In Vanguard magazine, Peter Burn argues that the procurement of the F-35 is sound and prudent policy both in terms of defence and industry. He suggests that the aircraft’s flexibility enables it to play multiple roles, while the regional economic benefits will prove to be profitable for Canadians.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/F35CriticismWontFlyBurn…

The main problem with Mr Swain’s argument, which makes a great deal of overall sense about Canadian defence policy especially concentrating on the Army, is that Canadians are simply not prepared to turn over air defence and surveillance of our territory to the US–which would be the consequence of our not buying new fighters (whatever type).  And, pace Mr Swain, UAVs are not yet ready or able to perform that role and won’t be for some time to come.

Of course the problem with focusing on the Army is that contracts for its equipment do not provide the prospects of vast por(c)k–and hopefully votes, notably in la belle province (that’s why the Bloc joined the coalition supporting the F-35)–that Air Force and Navy ones do.  Army equipment is considerably cheaper.

Earlier:

The Canadian Forces’ future, or, why the Globe and Mail is not a newspaper

Mark
Ottawa

Publius is on a roll.  Yesterday this, and now today:

The Traitors and the Spendthrifts
…
The Coalition horrors warned of by the Conservatives have come to pass, at the hands of the Conservatives themselves. They have spent like drunken Trudeau-era Grits. They have compromised their principles and told a key part of their base to stuff it. They have put patronage ahead of promise in their Senate appointments. Short of holding another referendum on national unity, they are as bad as what they claim to abhor.

It should then come as no surprise that Stephen the Spendthrift is rumoured to be in bed with Giles the Traitor. The deal at hand is classic pork-barrelling: Federal subsidies for an uneconomical Quebec City NHL arena. The region is the Tories only stronghold in La Belle Province, naturally a little electoral sweetener wouldn’t go amiss. Tis’ the season to be generous, with other people’s money. The Bloc serve no function except as a pressure group for the Quebecois. Their tautological platform has only one plank: What is Good for Quebec is Good for Quebec. It’s a deal made in political heaven, or hell for those who believe that principle should play a role in politics.

The much-abused Tory base remains loyal. The question is to what?..

La coalition has already won one victory, at considerable potential cost to Canadian taxpayers:

Bloc, Tories vote down call for open jet fighter bids

As for that fighter…

…F-35 slowing Upperdate

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Helicopters: “Auditor General on CH-148 and CH-47F acquisitions (plus lessons/risks for F-35?)”

Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s fire is not directed at either the Liberal or Conservative governments–though the politicians certainly weren’t exactly on the ball (and it’s a pity none of them no almost anything about things military). The CF in particular have a lot to answer for…

the CH-148 Cyclone acquisition just gets worser and worser:

Plan to replace aging Sea Kings hits new snag

Ottawa’s plans to get new helicopters to replace the decades-old Sea Kings have hit another round of delays, less than a month after the Auditor-General criticized the purchase for other problems.

This will be the third time that Sikorsky has fallen short of its promises in the $5.7-billion contract to provide 28 Cyclone helicopters to the Canadian Forces.

According to the original contract, Sikorsky was supposed to start delivering fully compliant helicopters in late 2008. However, shortly before the deadline, the government and the company agreed to a major contract amendment under which fully compliant helicopters would start being delivered in 2012.

To allow the Canadian Forces to begin training its helicopter crews, the government agreed at the time to start taking the delivery of a few “interim” aircraft on Nov. 30 of this year. The helicopters would not meet all the requirements for military missions, particularly in terms of flight endurance, but would be adequate for testing and evaluation.

On June 30, Sikorsky signed another deal with the government in which it was agreed the actual interim helicopter to be delivered on Nov. 30 would fall short on a number of otherpoints as well. In particular, the government and Sikorsky agreed the interim helicopters would not include all mission system software and would lack the ability to exchange tactical data with its accompanying ship.

Officials and experts have told The Globe and Mail that the Nov. 30 deadline will not be met despite the recently watered-down requirements for the interim aircraft. Sources said that the biggest obstacle to the first delivery is related to the certification of the aircraft, which might have been delayed by mechanical problems.

Sikorsky declined to comment about the latest delay…

Although the planned F-35 purchase is a different kettle of, er, fish (the CH-148 was a non-existent paper aircraft when we agreed to buy it and so far Canada is the only customer), does anyone honestly expect our Lightning II program to proceed on time and budget–and with the mouth-watering industrial benefits our government never stops touting (more here, and here and here from the government itself still spinning that $12 billion dream)?

Update: A comment at Milnet.ca on the Cyclone:

Geez, for the interim aircraft, they’ve gone with lesser engines, no mission system software and no Link-11.  Sounds like they’ve slapped a main and tail rotor onto a box containing a couple of radios.   

Upperdate: If the government still thinks we will start taking delivery of F-35s in 2016, when it looks increasingly certain the USAF will not be getting theirs operational that year (same version as for our Air Force, the “A”), then they are assuredly in cloud cuckoo land–otherwise they are being severely economical with the truth:

US Air Force concerned about F-35 delivery delay
* Software, production issues could slow deliveries
* Air Force could upgrade F-16s to cover any fighter gap

The U.S. Air Force’s top general said on Tuesday he was concerned that software development and production issues could delay the service’s plan to start using new F-35 fighter jets in April 2016.

General Norton Schwartz said the Air Force variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) fighter jet was doing better in testing and development than the Navy and Marine Corps’ versions, but it was not clear whether software issues would delay the start of their use in combat.

Vice Admiral David Venlet, the defense official in charge of the F-35 program, briefed Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter and other senior defense officials at a three-hour meeting on Monday about the preliminary findings of his months-long comprehensive review of the program.

The Pentagon earlier this year restructured the $382 billion fighter program, adding 13 months to the development phase. Venlet’s review is pointing to a further possible delay of up to three years and added costs of up to $5 billion, sources familiar with the program said earlier this month…

Mark
Ottawa

At Milnet.ca (scroll up too), before we get reports of today’s big Pentagon meeting on the program–more on that at end of Upperdate here:

F-35: One reason why the government does not want a fighter competition…

Mark
Ottawa

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 this post,

The F-35 may take a bit of US budget kicking

the latest from Defense Technology’s “Ares” blog; somehow I don’t think our government will be saying anything of its own volition:

Vice Adm. David Venlet, the Pentagon’s F-35 program executive officer, and Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 vice president, are returning from a Nov. 11 Joint Executive Steering Board meeting with the eight JSF partner nations in Rome.

The meeting, the first of its sort for Venlet since taking office, comes just after a White House-chartered deficit reduction commission proposed sharply curtailing U.S. orders for the single-engine Lockheed Martin aircraft. A defense official said the F-35 proposals “surprised all of us,” but noted that the proposal is preliminary and not yet actionable.

But, this bombshell and the forthcoming — and highly anticipated — technical baseline review (TBR), which will establish a new schedule and cost, were perhaps the gorillas in the room, as they were not on the formal agenda for the meetings, according to a defense official.

Venlet was unable to brief the TBR because it has not yet been approved by the Pentagon. And, a forthcoming life-cycle cost also has yet to receive the official blessing from senior Defense Department officials. However, both items are expected to potentially send shockwaves through the eight partner nations, as further price increases and delivery delays are expected [emphasis added].

International partners were expected to have their first deliveries in 2014 of the CTOL aircraft; that, however, is likely to change based on the new program baseline.

The Joint Executive Steering Board meeting took place only a day after the co-chairman of the White House deficit reduction commission suggested terminating the short-takeoff-and-landing (Stovl) F-35B and halving U.S. orders for the F-35A/C (carrier versions) through 2015. The commission’s co-chairs estimate the B termination will save $41 billion, including $17.6 billion through 2015. Halving the A/C buy and supplementing the purchase with F-16s and F/A-18E/Fs would save $9.5 billion through 2015, they add.

This was the first official foreign trip of this sort on F-35 by its new program manager, Vice Adm. David Venlet. He opted to break with past tradition and not attend this year’s Farnborough Air Show outside of London in order to manage the massive TBR, which will outline a new price and schedule for the tri-variant, stealthy fighter program. That review will be briefed to Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter Nov. 22 [emphasis added]…

Mark
Ottawa

Them costs, them costs:

White House Commission: Kill The F-35B
…
A draft document issued by the White House commission on reducing the federal deficit recommends scrapping the F-35B short-take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) fighter outright…

The proposals, contained in a supplement to a $3.8 trillion plan unveiled today, are not final and do not have any legislative force…

The F-35B is not the only Joint Strike Fighter version to be hit. The commission calls for production of the USAF F-35A and Navy F-35C to be cut in half in the years up to FY2015 [emphasis added], with the cancelled buys to be replaced by F-16s and F/A-18s…

I wonder if poor Peter thinks these might be just more glitches. And that we will start receiving our F-35As in 2016 with an average production cost of $74.5-million each.

Update: So we pay all that stealthy money for six expeditionary fighters? Even if twelve, such a contribution hardly seems worth it in any rational Canadian strategic military perspective; and will surely add very little practically to any serious coalition endeavour to which Canada might contribute against what is currently called a “peer” opponent.  Please think about it seriously.

Upperdate: The Canadian Air Force eventually deployed 18 CF-18s for the Kosovo/Serbia campaign–from a fighter strength far greater than 65.  Interoperable enough it would seem, even though the USAF and NATO allies (with one exception) have never flown Hornets.

Mark
Ottawa