Appropriateness of F35 for Canada questioned as costs projected to be $40B

[Electro Rock]

Look at the ridiculous graphic....such a waste of money, resources, time, everything. Think of the things we could do with that money, or not spend that money at all.

[Electro Rock]

I wonder where they're getting that 42 year service life figure from?

The U.S. *might* still be producing the F-35 (for 3rd world nations) in 42 years, however I seriously doubt Canada or any other modern military will be still be operating them at that point.

A 25 year service life is a lot more realistic.

[inane]

Like what, social programs?

Over the same length of time we'll spend as much on the DTES alone as we would on our whole fighter program.

[key2thecup]

The official inquiry is in today, the costs are now projected to be $45.8 Billion over 42 years for the 65 F-35's.

Fighter jet plan 're-set' as F-35 costs soar

F-35 isn't dead yet, but on life-support with costs set at $45.8B over 42 years

The federal government says it won't make a final decision on which fighter jet to buy until it completes every step of the complex process it laid out last spring after a blistering report from the auditor general about the escalating costs attached to the F-35.

Those costs have now been set at $45.8 billion over the jets' full 42-year life cycle, in an independent audit released Wednesday.

But officials didn't say Wednesday how long its evaluation process will take or whether the aging CF-18 Hornet jets in service now will hold up if there is a significant delay in finding replacements.

The original delivery date for the F-35s was supposed to be between 2017 and 2023. Officials said Wednesday that National Defence is conducting a thorough examination of the current fleet, including any costs of upgrades that might be needed to extend their life.

More details were given Wednesday about the evaluation of other options to replace the older planes. A panel of independent reviewers to oversee the process was announced. Members will include Keith Coulter, Philippe LaGasse of the University of Ottawa, public policy expert James Mitchell and Rod Monette, a former comptroller general of Canada.

Officials also said that all fighter jets currently in production or scheduled to be in production will be considered to replace the CF-18s. That includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Boeing Super Hornet and others.

One of the most anticipated reports was from accounting firm KPMG, which concludes that the total cost of owning and operating the F-35 jets would be $45.8 billion, including attrition costs, over a period of 42 years.

This is a huge increase from the government's original estimate of about $16 billion over 20 years, but there is no doubt that the lengthening of the life cycle is a big contributor to the inflated cost.

Process 'reset' with longer life cycle

At a press conference following the release of the documents, Minister of Public Works Rona Ambrose said the government had agreed to "refine" its fighter jet acquisition process as recommended by the auditor general.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that in 2010 he announced that the acquisition costs of the F-35 would be $9 billion. He stated that today's estimates were close to that figure, although he acknowledged that the $9 billion was spread over only 20 years, which, he said, was in line with Treasury Board guidelines.

MacKay also admitted that operating costs were not taken into account when coming up with the $9-billion calculation.

In the past few days the government has seized on that phrase, "life cycle," as a way to explain the inflated costs revealed by the KPMG report. Ambrose said that using the "full life cycle" of 42 years explains the difference in the costs.

MacKay said the "reset" process underway now is because the auditor general suggested more due diligence be applied to the cost estimates.

He did not directly answer questions about why the Defence Department did not use a longer life cycle than 20 years.

The KPMG report notes that Norway, Australia and the Netherlands all use 30-year life cycles for their cost estimates, but KPMG recommended that a full life cycle be the measure, which also happens to be what the auditor general stipulated in his spring report on the fighter planes.

At 42 years, beginning in 2010, that life cycle would mean the new planes wouldn't be mothballed until 2052.

F-35 benefits to Canada set at $9.8B

Another report released today found that, as has been reported, the industrial benefits that would flow from the F-35 program are estimated to be $9.8 billion. However, those opportunities will disappear if Canada drops out of the F-35 program. And if the F-35 is the chosen plane, there are no guarantees that Canadian industry will win all of the potential contracts.

Documents released Wednesday also revealed that the sticker price for each F-35 jet, based on information from the Joint Strike Fighter Program office, is now $92 million. This is a jump from the government's original promise of $75 million per plane.

Officials said that the plan is still for 65 planes if the winning jet turns out to be the F-35, but that figure could change if another plane is chosen.

Officials also said that even though Canada is evaluating all other options for aircraft, it still signed an F-35 memo of understanding in 2010.

Costs have steadily risen

In his report last spring, Auditor General Michael Ferguson concluded the F-35 program would cost as much as $25 billion over 20 years. But Ferguson also said that was too short a period of time to consider.

As a result, the government extended the jets' life cycle to the more realistic 42 years.

Wednesday, a Department of National Defence report assessed the new longer costs at about $44 billion.

The independent auditor KPMG essentially certified those costs — and the methodology used to determine them — in its own report. It also tacked on another billion dollars in costs to account for aircraft losses over the years, setting the final cost for 65 aircraft, maintenance, operating costs and sustainment at $45.8 billon.

The KPMG audit was generally muted in its criticism of the government's numbers.

But one area where it had significant disagreement was on the size of the contingency fund built into the government's $9 billion cap for simple acquisition. Those costs include just the planes and the parts and equipment needed to fly them, along with a built-in contingency spread of several hundred million dollars.

But KPMG worries the cost of the F-35 could climb far beyond the new $92 million figure. KPMG says that kind of increase would affect the number of planes the military could buy, bringing it down from 65 aircraft, to just 55.

Of course, that discussion is hypothetical, as the government now says its now looking at buying other planes.

It promises now to set aside the statement of operational requirements that the Defence Department wrote to justify its planned purchase of the F-35.

The government said Wednesday that statement of requirements no longer has any effect, though officials say it could also still be resurrected.

The government announced its decision to buy the F-35 fighter jets in July 2010, without following a competitive process, to replace Canada's fleet of aging CF-18 Hornets. The government stuck to its line that acquisition costs for the F-35s would be $9 billion for a 20-year lifespan, and it insisted that the sticker price for each individual plane would be $75 million.

The government dismissed a report by Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, who calculated that the F-35s would in fact cost $30 billion. Page used a life cycle estimate of 30 years.

But last April the government backed down when Ferguson issued a scathing report about the F-35 project. "There were significant weaknesses in the decision-making process used by National Defence in acquiring the F-35 to replace the CF-18," Ferguson wrote.

The government created the National Fighter Jet Procurement Secretariat under Public Works in response, and touted a seven-point plan to put the process back on the rails.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rt-release.html

[hudson bay rules]

I wonder where they're getting that 42 year service life figure from?

The U.S. *might* still be producing the F-35 (for 3rd world nations) in 42 years, however I seriously doubt Canada or any other modern military will be still be operating them at that point.

A 25 year service life is a lot more realistic.

[Lockout Casualty]

Military will contract out air-to-air refuelling if Canada goes with F-35

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has decided it will rely on the U.S., other allies and private companies for air-to-air refuelling if the government purchases the F-35 because the stealth fighters aren’t compatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft.

The revelation is buried in an explosive report released last week and means the Canadian military would be reliant on third parties to realize the full benefits of its F-35s — a situation opposition critics and analysts say is completely unacceptable.

“I’m shocked,” said former defence department military procurement chief Alan Williams.

“At the end of the day, we want to provide our men and women in uniform the ability to do the job. And certainly eliminating that flexibility to be able to refuel when we want with our own assets is a very limiting factor.”

Air-to-air refuelling is considered to be of critical importance to Canada’s military aircraft given the country’s massive size, particularly when it comes to conducting sovereignty missions in the North.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin initially said the stealth fighter would be compatible with Canada’s existing refuelling aircraft — a claim repeated by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

“Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, has confirmed that the F-35 can handle different types of refuelling systems, including the one currently used by our forces,” MacKay told Parliament on Jan. 31, 2011.

Numerous defence department documents subsequently showed the F-35 was in fact incompatible with Canada’s existing fleet of refuelling aircraft, but the military said it was examining ways to address the problem.

Now, according to accounting firm KPMG, National Defence has decided to change that plan and instead outsource air-to-air refuelling if Canada buys the stealth fighters.

KPMG was recently hired to verify the government’s cost estimates for the F-35. At one point it asked for clarification on the defence department’s plans for refuelling the stealth fighters in mid-air.

“With respect to air-to-air refuelling requirements, DND will rely on (the U.S.), coalition partners, or commercial refuelling assets to meet operational requirements,” reads KPMG’s final report, which was released last week.

Public Works, the department overseeing the government’s efforts to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 fighters, would only say the government is considering all options before deciding which aircraft to buy.

Williams said the decision to outsource air-to-air refuelling is not a trivial matter.

“This is a core capability,” he said. “Chances are our allies are there for us. But there’s a big difference between having to rely on them, and taking advantage of them.”

NDP military procurement critic Matthew Kellway said one of the knocks on the F-35 has always been its short range and perceived lack of suitability for sovereignty patrols and air interception in a country as vast as Canada.

“Twenty-one million lines of code and magically stealthy, and yet we can’t gas it up,” he said. “(Going) without sovereign refuelling capacity is to forgo any pretence at defence of sovereignty.”

It’s unclear if other potential replacements for the CF-18 like Boeing’s Super Hornet or the Eurofighter Typhoon would be automatically compatible with Canada’s refuelling aircraft.

But the decision to out-source air-to-air refuelling for the F-35 appears to be a matter of money and, at least according to Liberal defence critic John McKay, politics.

The Harper government says $9 billion is the maximum it will spend to purchase replacements for Canada’s CF-18s.

(The full cost of the F-35s has been pegged at $45 billion, but only $9 billion of that is for actually buying the planes. The remaining $36 billion is for development, maintenance, operating costs and disposal when the aircraft reach the end of their usefulness, expected around 2052.)

National Defence initially planned to spend $420 million of the $9 billion budgeted for purchasing the F-35s on Canadian-specific modifications such as making the country’s refuelling aircraft compatible with the stealth fighters.

But by opting to contract out air-to-air refuelling, the $420 million doesn’t need to be included in the price of purchasing F-35s, which will help keep the program within the $9 billion budget as the fighter’s price tag continues climbing.

Similarly, National Defence has slashed the amount of ammunition it plans to purchase if it goes with the F-35, from $270 million to $52 million. Planned spending on upgrades to infrastructure such as hangars has also been cut from $400 million to $244 million.

McKay, the Liberal critic, alleged the government and National Defence are simply juggling numbers to keep the program under the $9 billion mark.

“My guess on this is for spin purposes, they’ve said to National Defence they have to come in under $9 billion to protect their last shred of credibility,” he said. “But I don’t think refuelling is optional.”

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Read more: http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz2FfYETTOQ