…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

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

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

Recently:

…The Netherlands’ new coalition government is expected to maintain the nation’s commitment to the test phase of Lockheed Martin‘s F-35 programme, although a decision on whether the type will replace its Lockheed F-16s will not be made for several more years…

Story today:

Two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bears were intercepted by NATO aircraft yesterday. The Dutch Ministry of Defense said two Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) F-16s from Leeuwarden air base intercepted the Bears, which did not identify themselves.

Air controllers at the Air Operations Control Station in Nieuw Milligen (AOCS NM) ordered the F-16s to fly towards the Bears at supersonic speed. The RNLAF F-16s intercepted the Bears on the edge of the airspace under Dutch responsibility and followed them until they headed towards British airspace northwest of Leeuwarden.

British Royal Air Force Eurofighters then took over. Before the RNLAF scramble, Danish F-16s followed the Bears.

The last time Dutch, British, Danish (and German) aircraft were scrambled to follow two Bears was on the night of 15-16 September.

Better get some scary Conservative talking points into the hands of the Dutch government to justify a quicker (if ever) F-35 contract, eh? More scary Bear stuff here and here.

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

A letter sent to the Ottawa Citizen and not printed (though they phoned to say they were considering it):

Turboprops no substitute for fast air‏

Re: How to get more air force for the dollar, Oct. 12

I agree with Professor Paul Mitchell that there is much to question about the government’s decision to purchase 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s as the next fighter for the Canadian Air Force.  For example, the aircraft’s stealthiness is mainly required to enable success in offensive air strikes through heavy and effective air defence in the first days of a war–such as the US attacks that begin the two Gulf wars.  How likely is it that a future Canadian government would commit our fighters (and the number deployable abroad would be very small) to such a role [more here and here]?

On the other hand Prof. Mitchell questions the very need for a new fighter for defence and surveillance of Canadian airspace, and the interception of civilian aircraft that may pose a threat.  While the Russian manned bomber threat may be pretty low, if we do not have our own fighters to patrol the approaches to our territory the United States will feel compelled to do that job for us.  Rather a bargain for us but would Canadians willingly accept the severe loss of sovereignty?

Prof. Mitchell writes that instead “The most likely avenue of attack from the air on Canada today is…from… a small privately owned commercial aircraft.”  He then maintains that an armed version of a modern turboprop military trainer might thus be the best new aircraft to acquire rather than fast air, i.e.  fighter jets.  There is one big hole in this argument: 9/11.  Modern jet airliners are quite a bit faster than those turboprops.  They would not be able rapidly to intercept, identify, and take any necessary action against such an airliner that was suspected of posing a threat.  Not a risk I think we should run.

Related, at the National Post’s “Full Comment” (more slapping down St. Steve Staples, see also end of this post):

Jeff Jedras: Still wrong about fighters 50 years later

As for a certain Canadian icon mentioned by Mr Jedras:

Arrow not a bullseye

Update: Post is the “more” at the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
…
Jeff Jedras — National Post
Still wrong about fighters – More…

Mark
Ottawa

But remember this is still frenzied leaking by the services to protect what turf they can:

…
Plans to order 138 new F35 Joint Strike Fighters are set to be cut to around 50, and the RAF’s entire fleet of Tornadoes faces the axe after next week’s review…

So there may well go some of the loot our aviation industry is expecting to get from international F-35 sales. Meanwhile two other international partners in the F-35 are not committing to serious actual contracts:

1) Norway:

Norway Delays JSF Purchase

2) Netherlands:

The Netherlands’ new coalition government is expected to maintain the nation’s commitment to the test phase of Lockheed Martin‘s F-35 programme, although a decision on whether the type will replace its Lockheed F-16s will not be made for several more years.

A conceptual agreement made by the right-wing VVD and PVV parties and the Christian Democrats to form a new cabinet includes plans to buy a second F-35 test aircraft in 2011 and to fully participate in the Joint Strike Fighter’s operational test and evaluation.

A ruling on further Dutch participation in the F-35 programme had been put on hold earlier this year, following the collapse of the nation’s last coalition cabinet.

An order for a first test aircraft was not cancelled, but a decision on acquiring the second was postponed until a new government was in place.

And note (same Telegraph story) that the RAF does not plan to use the F-35 for UK air defence–whereas defending Canada against Russian Bears is almost the only role the government mentions for our F-35s (from our Chief of the Air Staff: “He said the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.”):

In a strong defence of the RAF’s fleet of fast jets, his [Air Marshal Timo Anderson's] speech argued that the Quick Reaction Alert Force of Tornadoes and Typhoons [both non-stealthy aircraft] was vital to national security “despite what amateur theorists might assert from their armchairs”.

“Without such an air defence capability, the UK would not be able to guarantee security of its sovereign air space and we would be unable to respond effectively to a 9/11-style terrorist attack from the air.”..

Earlier:

One view on the F-35, and other JSF matters

Mark
Ottawa

Conference of Defence Associations’ media round-up, covering:

…
- Afghanistan
- Canadian Forces
- American Defence and Security Issues
- International Security and Defence Issues
- Recommended reading…

I found this especially interesting, esp, about the F-35 near the end; what does our government expect our new fighters really to do (see end of this post)?:

…
In the American Interest, Richard B. Andres provides commentary on the future of the US Air Force and some of the problems associated with its aging fleets.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=861..

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