Auditor General: F-35 Funding Frozen; Conservatives Promise Public Review

[-Goose-]

The way military tech and current aviation trends are going, it looks like the days of dog-fighting are numbered or gone entirely. Outside the US I'd only go for the Rafale or Gripen, the Eurofighter is a mess right now. SuperHornets or kick-start the SilentEagle project if your looking at a US jet.

[Electro Rock]

The way military tech and current aviation trends are going, it looks like the days of dog-fighting are numbered or gone entirely. Outside the US I'd only go for the Rafale or Gripen, the Eurofighter is a mess right now. SuperHornets or kick-start the SilentEagle project if your looking at a US jet.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

I don't think its as much of a case of them lying as not even *Lockheed Martin* knowing the full cost of the program and the many layers of federal bureaucracy that a program decision this has to go through, so that there could be up to a year's information delay by the time it gets done. Lockheed has dropped a lot of balls in the last year and costs have exploded so its no surprise that the F-35 will end up costing more than promised a year ago let alone back when Canada signed onto the program. The good news is that we still aren't fully commited or in for a lot of money at this point and there are other options.

[Pouria]

If Iran can make fighter planes, why can't Canadians build their very own fighter jets? Why rely on US for these things when we can have capable people building similar fighter jets. But the other question is, why do we need to spend money on fighter jets.

[Electro Rock]

If Iran can make fighter planes, why can't Canadians build their very own fighter jets? Why rely on US for these things when we can have capable people building similar fighter jets. But the other question is, why do we need to spend money on fighter jets.

[Harbinger]

Iran just basically reverse engineered a bunch of '60s-'70s technology with a few improvements of their own and assistance from Russia. Designing a 4.5 or 5th generation fighter from scratch is an order of magnitude more difficult, let alone in a country that hasn't designed a fighter by itself in over 50 years and doesn't have the necessary technical infrastructure in place.

It would be brutally expensive {like probably 15 or 20 billion in developments costs alone} and the project would have had to have been started in the early '90s at the latest for it to have been available on time to replace the worn out CF-18s.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Elizabeth May

Leader, Green Party of Canada

F-35s: It's Not that They are Expensive. It's that They are Useless.

Posted: 04/ 9/2012 6:29 am

In July 2010, I wrote a column for my local paper,Island Tides, on the government's decision to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets. Now that the Auditor General has confirmed what everyone knew -- that the planes were wildly over budget and that we were being misled (lied to?) at every turn -- I decided to go back and look at my column.

On the costs I wrote:

"Like many military contracts in the US, the costs of the F-35 have spiralled and are way over budget. In March 2010, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the Congress that it was 'unacceptable' that the F-35 is 50 per cent over-budget. Costs of developing the new fighter jets is approaching $300 billion. With bureaucratic baffle-gab that takes your breath away, the Pentagon critique of the fighter jet programme concluded: 'affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.'"

On the question of whether the F35s met Canadian defence needs:

"Peter MacKay is enthused about the jets. Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets are exciting new toys. They are so exciting that our government did not hold an open contracting process. We only wanted these planes. They can take off and land on aircraft carriers. They have stealth coating. They can engage in air-to-air combat and rely on mid-air re-fueling...We don't have aircraft carriers. We have no plausible security scenario in which air-to-air combat is anticipated. (The Battle of Britain was a long time ago.) And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?

True, our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Our large geography has always led to a priority choice for two-engine planes, so if a plane is in a remote spot and loses an engine, the pilot can get to a safe place to land. The F-35s are single engine planes. Asked what will happen if the engine fails, Peter MacKay replied 'it won't.' We need planes for search and rescue. The F-35 is not appropriate for search and rescue."

My column concluded:

So, it seems Canada is spending money we don't have for planes we don't need. And it seems we are doing this to hold our place in some macho military solidarity with the Pentagon. The opportunity costs of $16 billion for fighter jets is enormous -- in lost opportunities to reduce poverty, create jobs, protect health care and fight climate change. None of this has been debated or discussed in the House. And it was not in the 2010 budget. I will work with other parties to reverse this sale and direct priorities to those Canadians value.

So, I was still using the Harper $16 billion estimate. But when the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, explained that those costs were off by about $10 billion or so in a March 2011 report, I believed him. Stephen Harper questioned him.

The point is that not even willful blindness of the most acute variety can be pleaded by the prime minister in his attack on Page. If I knew the planes were being chosen without criteria or a proper open bidding process, that the whole project was a boondoggle and that Canada was going to be spending $25 billion on planes we did not need, so too did everyone else.

The auditor general's report should be required reading for every voter who thought Stephen Harper had the qualities of a wise manager of the public purse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/elizabeth-may/f-35-spending_b_1409727.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

[Electro Rock]

That's a horribly written article.

Anyway from what I can tell the Canadian government actually sought to distance itself from the F-35 a long time ago but feigned interest because it didn't want to be seen as the first partner to jump off the wagon. Now that even major partners like the U.K. are balking, the political consquences of walking away aren't going to be so serious.

Ever partner that selects another aircraft or cancels or reduces an order drives the cost of the aircraft up, which in turn reduces orders further in a chain reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few hundred F-35s actually end up going into service worldwide, not the thousand originally projected.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

That's a horribly written article.

Anyway from what I can tell the Canadian government actually sought to distance itself from the F-35 a long time ago but feigned interest because it didn't want to be seen as the first partner to jump off the wagon. Now that even major partners like the U.K. are balking, the political consquences of walking away aren't going to be so serious.

Ever partner that selects another aircraft or cancels or reduces an order drives the cost of the aircraft up, which in turn reduces orders further in a chain reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few hundred F-35s actually end up going into service worldwide, not the thousand originally projected.

[aliboy]

That's a horribly written article.

Anyway from what I can tell the Canadian government actually sought to distance itself from the F-35 a long time ago but feigned interest because it didn't want to be seen as the first partner to jump off the wagon. Now that even major partners like the U.K. are balking, the political consquences of walking away aren't going to be so serious.

Ever partner that selects another aircraft or cancels or reduces an order drives the cost of the aircraft up, which in turn reduces orders further in a chain reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few hundred F-35s actually end up going into service worldwide, not the thousand originally projected.

[Electro Rock]

It was obvious a long time ago that the F-35 program had issues. That's one of the key reasons why the U.S. Navy, which characteristically buys only cutting edge designs when its time to upgrade, started buying the Super Hornet over a decade ago because they knew there were going to be significant delays, cost overruns and even the possibility of outright cancellation.

[aliboy]

Having problems is one thing, just about every defense project does, but then there is that line where it no longer becomes workable. I agree that this aircraft could at some point be outright cancelled. First we will see all of the foreign buyers walk away, which is happening now, then if it doesn't turn around, the US will pull the plug.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Short-term costing for F-35s a 'distortion': ex-DND official

BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS APRIL 9, 2012

The Conservative government’s explanation for lowballing the F-35 price tag by $10 billion weeks before the last election may be questionable, say experts, but its actions were consistent with normal practices.

Photograph by: Herald Archive, Reuters , Postmedia News

OTTAWA — The Conservative government's explanation for lowballing the F-35 price tag by $10 billion weeks before the last election may be questionable, say experts, but its actions were consistent with normal practices.

What indicates an intentional effort to mislead Canadians, some of them argue, is that the government and military repeatedly have laid out the cost of maintaining and sustaining the stealth fighters for 20 years instead of the aircraft's full 36-year life expectancy — despite those longer-term numbers being available.

The Conservative government admitted Thursday that it knew weeks before the last year's federal election that the full cost of obtaining, maintaining and operating 65 F-35s would be more than $25 billion, rather than the $14.7 billion put forward by National Defence.

It insisted it was merely reporting the cost of purchasing and maintaining the stealth fighters, and did not include pilot salaries, training costs, jet fuel and other expenses because they would be incurred no matter which aircraft was bought.

While the government has said it will include all such costs going forward, Alan Williams, a former Defence Department official who spent years overseeing military purchases, said excluding such additional expenses is not unusual.

"If you want to cost a new acquisition, you typically don't include what it costs to operate," he said Monday. "Maybe you should do that, but that's not normally reported."

The bigger question, said Williams, is why estimates from National Defence and the government only projected the cost of maintaining and sustaining the F-35s for 20 years when it knew the aircraft would be used for more than 30.

"That's a known distortion," Williams said. "If you have as your intent to be as open as possible, you don't do that."

There is no question that government and military intends the F-35 or whichever other aircraft replaces Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s to remain the country's main aerial fighter until the middle of the century.

"It has to go for at least 30 years, which is our typical expectation," Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told a parliamentary committee on Sept. 15, 2010.

However, its cost projections have consistently stopped at 20 years — a fact that raised eyebrows with both the parliamentary budget officer and the auditor general.

"In presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years," Auditor General Michael Ferguson wrote in his report, released last week. "This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft's estimated life expectancy."

A government official said 36-year cost projections will be included going forward. However, he refused to say why the government has not included them in the past.

Instead, the official pointed to comments made by the Defence Department bureaucrat in charge of military procurement, Dan Ross, to a parliamentary committee in December 2010 in response to a question about military helicopters.

"We all drive cars, but no one here can tell me what the price of gas is going to be next week," he said. "To predict what it's going to be 30 years from now — or the cost of aluminum, repairs, and repair and overhaul — is a very difficult business."

Ferguson's report, however, said the military does have long-term figures for the F-35.

"The estimated life expectancy of the F-35 is about 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage," Ferguson wrote. "National Defence plans to operate the fleet for at least that long. It is able to estimate costs over 36 years."

The auditor general added that the multinational office responsible for overseeing the F-35 program actually was providing National Defence with 36-year costs.

University of Ottawa military expert Philippe Lagasse said that by capping the estimates at 20 years, the government has been able to exclude not only long-term maintenance expenses, but costs related to buying replacement F-35s and upgrading the fleet.

Williams and Lagasse said they believe the decision was intentional.

"Already the figure was rather large and it's a good way to keep the number low, artificially low, and to make it more palpable," Lagasse said. "Why did they package it that way? Because it's easier to swallow."

Read more:http://www.canada.com/health/Short+term+costing+distortion+official/6431837/story.html#ixzz1rbMAyYFO

[Satan's Evil Twin]

THE F-35 STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAM: How the War Economy Contributes to Exacerbating the Social Crisis

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 4, 2012

There is mounting controversy regarding the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jet from US defence giant Lockheed Martin. The Pentagon has commissioned the purchase of 2,443 aircraft "to provide the bulk of its tactical airpower for the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy over the coming decades". This massive procurement of advanced weapons systems is part of America's "Global War", largely directed against China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.

The overall cost of the program to the US military is estimated at a staggering $1.51 trillion over the so called life cycle of the program, namely $618 million per plane. (Shalal-Esa, Andrea. Government sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.51 trillion., Chicago Tribune, April 2, 2012).

Several of America's close allies including the UK, Australia, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Israel, and Japan are slated to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter plane.

The economic and social implications of this program are potentially devastating. Apart from the fact that the fighter planes will be used in upcoming US-NATO wars, resulting in inevitable civilian deaths, their procurement --at tax payers expense-- will contribute to exacerbating the ongoing fiscal crisis. Unless they are solely funded by an increase in the public debt (which is highly unlikely), these massive expenditures on advanced weapons systems will require the adoption of concurrent austerity measures over a period of up to thirty years, at the expense of an entire generation.

The costs of military procurement are always at the expense of social programs, public investment in infrastructure and employment creation in the civilian economy. Conversely, very few jobs will be created by the defence contractors. The cost of creating one job in America's weapons industry (2001) varies between 25 and 66 million dollars per job. (Michel Chossudovsky, War is Good for Business, Global Research, September 2001)

In the US and NATO member countries, drastic budgetary measures are currently being applied with a view to financing the "war economy". These economic measures --adopted at the crossroads of a Worldwide economic depression-- are also contributing to spearheading entire national economies into bankruptcy, with devastating social consequences.

Canada's F-35 Program

In Canada, the Conservative government had initially committed itself to an overall cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program of 9 billion dollars involving the purchase of 65 aircraft. This figure of 9 billion dollars was a political cover-up. Known and documented, the real cost of the program was much larger. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson's report presented to the House of Commons (April 2), confirmed that the cost of Canada's F-35 programme "could reach $30 billion over three decades", namely $461 million per plane:

"In March 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provided Parliament with a report on the estimated acquisition and sustainment [sic] costs associated with Canada's planned purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets. Shortly thereafter, the Department of National Defence (DND) responded to the PBO report. In that response, DND claimed that the total costs associated with the F-35 program would be approximately $15 billion. However, the recent auditor general's report reveals that, in June 2010, DND's true cost estimate was approximately $25 billion -- representing a difference of $10 billion. The inclusion of this difference would bring DND's cost estimate in line with that of the PBO,"

It is worth noting that the estimated unit cost in Canada's program ($461 million per aircraft) which has been the object of political controversy is substantially lower than that of the US (estimated at $661 million) and Norway (estimated to be of the order of $769 million over the "operational lifetime" of the F-35 aircraft). (Testimony of Rear Admiral Arne Røksund, "41st Parliament, 1st Session, Standing Committee on National Defence.", House of Commons, Ottawa, November 24, 2011).

Ottawa's 2012 Austerity Budget

Careful timing: The 30 billion dollar cost of the F-35 programme was known prior to the presentation of the budget. The report of Canada's Auditor General (April 3), however, regarding the cost overrun was only made public ex post facto, five days after the budget speech by Finance Minister Flaherty on March 29.

The 2012 Canadian federal budget presented a gruesome scenario of austerity measures requiring massive layoffs of federal government employees, drastic cuts in spending including pension funds and the curtailment of federal provincial transfers. In contrast, the issue of spiralling defense spending resulting from the F-35 fighter program is not acknowledged, as if it has no bearing on the structure of public expenditure.

The government had announced drastic austerity measures, but these budgetary measures apply largely to non-military spending. (The federal budget estimates indicate a modest cut in defence expenditure, which do not include predictable overruns in the cost of weapons procurement).

The crucial question: How does this multibillion dollar F-35 project affect the 2012 federal budget, which is largely predicated on a sizeable curtailment of "civilian" as opposed to "military" expenditures?

The issue of the budget deficit could be resolved overnight by reining in the war economy. But that "solution" would not be in the interest of achieving "World peace" and "global security".

"Guns versus Butter": How does this spiralling defence expenditure allocated to the purchase of advanced weapons systems affect all other categories of civilian government expenditure? How does it affect public investment in the civilian economy?

These questions are of crucial significance for the people of the United States, whose government is spending a staggering $1.5 trillion on the F-35 program. It has similar implications for the nine countries which decided to purchase these expensive fighter planes, while concurrently implementing "strong economic medicine" to finance the predictable cost overruns of military spending.

"War is good for business" (for the defence contractors) yet at the same it spearheads the civilian economy into bankruptcy.

Nowhere in the Canadian federal budget is the issue of the F-35 program and its staggering overall cost of 30 billion dollars mentioned. That's an average cost of $461 million dollars per plane, including the "flyaway" purchase plus the so-called sustainment costs (maintenance, operating costs and related investments associated with the F-35 program).

Canada's Welfare State is collapsing, health care is in the process of being privatised, primary and secondary education is under-funded. Universities are in a state of crisis with rising tuition fees. Yet at no point in the debate on the 2012 federal budget has the issue of the war economy been raised.

How does the war economy backlash on people's lives? How does it undermine and destabilize the civilian economy? How does it affect the funding of social programs?

What should be understood is that the austerity measures are in part implemented with a view to financing the war economy.

The Protest Movement

The protest movement against the economic austerity measures must be integrated be with the antiwar movement.

The abolition of war --including the closing down of the weapons industry-- is a precondition for scrapping the neoliberal economic agenda. War and Globalization are intimately related.

University students in Quebec have recently been involved in mass demonstrations regarding the hike of tuition fees implemented by the provincial government. Yet at no time has the issue of military spending and its impact on social programs been raised.

The purchase of advanced weapons systems will inevitably be at the expense of federal provincial transfers which contribute to the financing of health and education.

Curtailing the F-35 stealth fighter program would immediately make more money available in support of Quebec's university students. In fact the cost associated with one F-35 fighter plane (461 million dollars) would release more than enough resources to finance the hike in tuition fees for years to come.

The protest movement against government austerity measures applied in the US, Canada and the European Union must address the issue of the US-NATO led war.

The F-35 stealth aircraft are not weapons of peace. They are part of the killing machine. They are slated to be used against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

They are "weapons of mass destruction" to be used in the Pentagon's "long war".

The other side of the coin pertains to "Guns versus Butter", namely the relationship between the "civilian economy" and the "war economy".

War and the neoliberal economic policy agenda are part of an integrated process.

The staggering cost of these advanced weapons is contributing to the demise of what is left of the Welfare State, not to mention the impoverishment --in several NATO member countries-- of an entire generation.

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=30144

Austerity to pay for war machines.

Fantino: Don't compare Norway, Canada's F-35 costs

After doing some digging, the Norwegian price seems to have been mistake - it is not 40 billion USD, but 40 billion NOK.

Norway’s Ministry of Defence has maintained that the final bill for the F-35 acquisition program will remain close to the cost estimate of $6.7 billion it reached when the U.S. aircraft was selected in late 2008. That figure excludes weapon systems.

“We expect the price that we pay will be close to the calculation we arrived at in 2008,” said Roger Ingebrigsten, Norway’s state defense secretary.

The MoD has estimated the lifetime cost of operating 56 F-35s at some $26 billion. The actual cost will depend on which logistics and maintenance systems are employed, and from which air bases the new aircraft will operate

[Satan's Evil Twin]

F-35 $10-billion fib eclipses fast ferries, convention centre, sponsorships, and Airbus—combined!

Stephen Harper doesn't seem perturbed by the latest controversy dogging the Conservatives.

Prime Minister's Office

By

Charlie Smith, April 9, 2012

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cronies are trying to downplay the F-35 fighter-jet scandal.

It's a bit tough to swallow when you compare it with other financial boondoggles in recent history.

As has been widely reported, the auditor general revealed that the Conservative government lowballed by $10 billion the cost of buying and operating 65 of these planes over 20 years.

To put this in perspective, here are the costs associated with other major political controversies in recent history:

• Montreal's Olympic cost overrun in 1976: $1.5 billion.

• The cost of Air Canada purchasing 34 Airbus planes in 1988 in a sale arranged with the help of lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber: $1.8 billion.

• The difference between the initial cost and final price tag of B.C.'s fast ferries, which were ordered by Glen Clark in 1994: $250 million.

• The difference between the initial cost and final price tag of Vancouver's new convention centre, which was ordered by Gordon Campbell in 2003: $388 million.

• Then-auditor general Sheila Fraser's 2004 estimate of the amount paid to communications and advertising companies on the federal sponsorship program: $100 million.

The Conservatives' $10-billion jet-fighter whopper sets a new standard.

Normally, this is the type of thing that causes members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to set their hair on fire.

But apart from one news release—which doesn't include the names of Harper or Defence Minister Peter MacKay—the taxpayers federation hasn't exactly been in the media's face about this scandal.

We're sure it has nothing to do with the following connections between the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Conservative government:

• Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is a former CEO of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

• Conservative MP John Williamson is a former national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

• Stephen Harper's former press secretary, Sara McIntyre, is a former B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

• Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal/Ontario director Gregory Thomas used to work for cabinet ministers in Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government.

To claim that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a double standard when it comes to Conservative politicians would be to suggest that this fine organization has a political bias. Banish this thought from your head immediately!

http://www.straight.com/article-655241/vancouver/10billion-f35-fighter-jet-scandal-eclipses-combined-amount-spent-fast-ferries-convention-centre-sponsor

The article doesn't account for inflation, but the actual number is ~$10 billion combined.

[Electro Rock]

Upfront vs lifetime cost? Apples to oranges.

When you buy a car you don't normally consider the cost of gas, maintainance, insurance and even things like the cost of eventally scrapping it to be part of the initial purchase price. Those "extra" costs are what we're by and large paying *right now* anyway to operate the CF-18.

This is just a contrived ploy to fool your typical dollar figure obsessed Canadian who rarely looks deeper into an issue.

That said, I hope the F-35 is off the table as among other things it's probably the most expensive to operate of all our options.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Upfront vs lifetime cost? Apples to oranges.

When you buy a car you don't normally consider the cost of gas, maintainance, insurance and even things like the cost of eventally scrapping it to be part of the initial purchase price. Those "extra" costs are what we're by and large paying *right now* anyway to operate the CF-18.

This is just a contrived ploy to fool your typical dollar figure obsessed Canadian who rarely looks deeper into an issue.

That said, I hope the F-35 is off the table as among other things it's probably the most expensive to operate of all our options.

[Electro Rock]

Again, apples and oranges, and intentionally pedantic, I'm sure you could easily catch the govt "lying" somewhere when it comes to matters of future inflation and exchange rate too.

Anyway, did you lnow that it costs $25000 an hour to operate the current fighters, given a fleet of 79 aircraft and a NATO minimum required 180 flight hours per year per fighter pilot, that's at least $355 million a ye ar in average operations costs.

That's not including upgrades, weapons or wartime operating costs. THAT's the additionally accounted costs, and they will apply no matter what. In the past noone ever really counted lifetime costs because most fighters weren't expected to be in service for very long before being replaced.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Again, apples and oranges, and intentionally pedantic, I'm sure you could easily catch the govt "lying" somewhere when it comes to matters of future inflation and exchange rate too.

Anyway, did you lnow that it costs $25000 an hour to operate the current fighters, given a fleet of 79 aircraft and a NATO minimum required 180 flight hours per year per fighter pilot, that's at least $355 million a ye ar in average operations costs.

That's not including upgrades, weapons or wartime operating costs. THAT's the additionally accounted costs, and they will apply no matter what. In the past noone ever really counted lifetime costs because most fighters weren't expected to be in service for very long before being replaced.

[Electro Rock]

That's the thing, for a complex program lasting decades its basically impossible to accurately predict total costs over time, it could even end up being that the highest estimates are too low and thus everyone is technically lying. Traditionally only the initial costs were counted.

The CF-18 initial costs were $80 million per in early '80s dollars, making it far more initially expensive than even the F-35 will be, counting inflation. I wouldn't be surprised if its lifetime costs are higher too, considering the hard use they saw during the Cold War years and the fact that they needed a very expensive refurbishment and upgrade 10 years ago in order to make them last until 2017.