KELOWNA — Proceeding with the decision to sole source F-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force is irresponsible and flies in the face of fiscal conservatism. Currently, we are waiting for the results from a special panel of “experts” commissioned by the Harper government’s National Fighter Procurement Secretariat.
The media is reporting it’s highly likely that this panel will recommend the government proceed with its sole sourcing of the F-35 as recommended by the Department of national Defence to Public Works and Government Services Canada. This decision was originally justified with an infamous 160-word memo that preceded a complete statement of “Canadian” operational requirements.
The facts: The F-35 is already seven years behind schedule and is many billions of dollars over budget. The United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report indicates significant technical problems with the aircraft’s software and other aircraft systems.
To keep the project moving, several performance requirements have been reduced to below the minimum acceptable as originally demanded by the Joint Operations Requirements Document.
A technical discussion on the performance merits of the F-35 contains a multitude of forward-looking statements by the manufacturer that time has shown to be significantly less impressive than promised. There is a high probability that this “expert” panel continued to compare these forward-looking statements against competitor “unclassified” information.
This rationale would yield the results the Harper government needed to vindicate its original sole source decision, a decision and process highly criticized by the Auditor General. Like they say, garbage in garbage out.
The F-35 is the CF-18 replacement option that integrates most poorly into our Canadian infrastructure. It is the only choice that comes with no guaranteed industrial regional benefits. The memorandum of understanding Canada signed does not commit us to purchasing the aircraft but does permit Canada to compete for work throughout the project and we have to pay more than $700 million to the manufacture over several phases just to compete.
To date, reports indicate we have received less in benefit than we have committed to be a partner of the program that builds this single-engine video game.
So, where are we? Whether one denies the technical realities of the F-35 is irrelevant, the real questions are these:
Is it wise to contractually attach ourselves to a program of significant technical and financial risk?
Should we conclude that if we don’t buy this troubled and costly F-35 that we will be shunned or excluded by our coalition partners?
To believe that is to believe some of NATO’s biggest partners — France and Germany — will also be irrelevant, since neither is getting involved in this mess.
The Harper government initially tried to sell us on the idea that the F-35 program would cost us $14.7 billion. Since then, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a cost of nearly $30 billon and a KPMG estimated $46 billion. The number grew every time someone looked at it.
Interestingly, the KPMG report admits spare aircraft were not costed. My opinion, as a former CF-18 pilot and operational fleet manager for the Canadian Forces, is that infrastructure costs are woefully underestimated.
Recently, the Rideau Institute released a paper by University of B.C. professor Michael Byers, who estimated a total program cost of $126 billion.
The truth is the government has no idea what the F-35 program will cost Canada. What we do know is that there is far more evidence to support a technically troubled and unaffordable F-35 than an affordable one.
Since the F-35 cannot deliver the capability it promised on time and on budget, the time has come to seriously evaluate other alternatives. A new statement of operational requirements focused on our defence priorities is a great place to start.
A competition of demonstrated performance, industrial benefit and price gets a ticket to the dance.
If we have the courage to think for ourselves, alternatives to the F-35 exist. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Stephen Fuhr: The F-35 is totally unaffordable and can’t do what was promised | The Province
The media is reporting it’s highly likely that this panel will recommend the government proceed with its sole sourcing of the F-35 as recommended by the Department of national Defence to Public Works and Government Services Canada. This decision was originally justified with an infamous 160-word memo that preceded a complete statement of “Canadian” operational requirements.
The facts: The F-35 is already seven years behind schedule and is many billions of dollars over budget. The United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report indicates significant technical problems with the aircraft’s software and other aircraft systems.
To keep the project moving, several performance requirements have been reduced to below the minimum acceptable as originally demanded by the Joint Operations Requirements Document.
A technical discussion on the performance merits of the F-35 contains a multitude of forward-looking statements by the manufacturer that time has shown to be significantly less impressive than promised. There is a high probability that this “expert” panel continued to compare these forward-looking statements against competitor “unclassified” information.
This rationale would yield the results the Harper government needed to vindicate its original sole source decision, a decision and process highly criticized by the Auditor General. Like they say, garbage in garbage out.
The F-35 is the CF-18 replacement option that integrates most poorly into our Canadian infrastructure. It is the only choice that comes with no guaranteed industrial regional benefits. The memorandum of understanding Canada signed does not commit us to purchasing the aircraft but does permit Canada to compete for work throughout the project and we have to pay more than $700 million to the manufacture over several phases just to compete.
To date, reports indicate we have received less in benefit than we have committed to be a partner of the program that builds this single-engine video game.
So, where are we? Whether one denies the technical realities of the F-35 is irrelevant, the real questions are these:
Is it wise to contractually attach ourselves to a program of significant technical and financial risk?
Should we conclude that if we don’t buy this troubled and costly F-35 that we will be shunned or excluded by our coalition partners?
To believe that is to believe some of NATO’s biggest partners — France and Germany — will also be irrelevant, since neither is getting involved in this mess.
The Harper government initially tried to sell us on the idea that the F-35 program would cost us $14.7 billion. Since then, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a cost of nearly $30 billon and a KPMG estimated $46 billion. The number grew every time someone looked at it.
Interestingly, the KPMG report admits spare aircraft were not costed. My opinion, as a former CF-18 pilot and operational fleet manager for the Canadian Forces, is that infrastructure costs are woefully underestimated.
Recently, the Rideau Institute released a paper by University of B.C. professor Michael Byers, who estimated a total program cost of $126 billion.
The truth is the government has no idea what the F-35 program will cost Canada. What we do know is that there is far more evidence to support a technically troubled and unaffordable F-35 than an affordable one.
Since the F-35 cannot deliver the capability it promised on time and on budget, the time has come to seriously evaluate other alternatives. A new statement of operational requirements focused on our defence priorities is a great place to start.
A competition of demonstrated performance, industrial benefit and price gets a ticket to the dance.
If we have the courage to think for ourselves, alternatives to the F-35 exist. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Stephen Fuhr: The F-35 is totally unaffordable and can’t do what was promised | The Province
