F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Good2Golf]

Will there still be enough aircraft to offer an expeditionary capability if that attrition does occur?

...more to the point, will we have enough pilots to fly them and enough technicians to maintain them?

Not sure how manning ratios work with ships, but aircraft require multiples of operator/maintainer crews to cover the spectrum of force generation and force employment activities.  Those personnel numbers are what end up being one of the largest portions of a capability's overall cost -- and a challenge to maintain that goes significantly beyond the mere dispensation of monetary resources.  It may not be intuitive to many, but the overall number of aircraft in an operational fleet is but one, and not necessarily the greatest, factor in maintaining a technological capability that is incredibly dependant on people.

We currently operate a fleet of fighter aircraft slightly smaller (operationally, not including aircraft put away in long-term storage) than the future planned NGFC / JSF fleet.  Not being directly involved with that fleet, and mindful of operational security, I will say that I believe that fighter (and other fleets') manning is a challenge now, and it will still be a challenge when whatever aircraft that replaces the CF-18 is conducting operations.

up to 4¢

Regards
G2G

 

[HB_Pencil]

Thats with the assumption that the aircraft will be in production. The line may or may not last that long, and thats entirely out of Canada's hands.

Buying the attrition aircraft now is more expensive, but removes the risk that the line will be shut down early and the risk that the RCAF won't be able to offer that capability due to too few airframes. Will there still be enough aircraft to offer an expeditionary capability if that attrition does occur?

Given the US military's desperate need to recapitalize its tac-air capability, its almost assured the program will be running until 2030. Buying attrition aircraft now is a extremely prohibitive hedge for an very unlikely outcome. Furthermore there would be quite a long signaling that the line would be closing, when Canada and other states would presumably make a final round of orders (like how Australia and I think the UK decided to buy C-17s right before the line closed).

 

[The Bread Guy]

The federal government is officially back-tracking on the process of buying the F-35 stealth fighter, part of a reassessment of the purchase that’s causing anxiety among Canadian companies hoping to tap billions of dollars in spin-off work for the jets.

The Department of National Defence has issued a significant correction to the “Plans and Priorities” report it tabled in Parliament for MPs last year.

In an “erratum” note, it says the 2011-12 report wrongly described the F-35 purchase as being in “definition” project phase, which generally means an item has already received preliminary approval from Treasury Board, the gatekeeper for federal spending.

Instead the decision to buy a next-generation fighter is being reclassified as being in “option analysis” phase, which means Ottawa is still determining what it needs in terms of a plane.

In the note, National Defence blames an unknown bureaucrat for the snafu, saying someone made a “typographical error” in the 2011-12 “Report on Plans and Priorities.” ....

Globe & Mail, 24 Apr 12

RPP erratum note for DND here, new Next Generation Fighter Capability project update in RPP here.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

up to 4¢

C'mon. That's got to be worth a nickel. I think they're great points.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Given the US military's desperate need to recapitalize its tac-air capability, its almost assured the program will be running until 2030. Buying attrition aircraft now is a extremely prohibitive hedge for an very unlikely outcome. Furthermore there would be quite a long signaling that the line would be closing, when Canada and other states would presumably make a final round of orders (like how Australia and I think the UK decided to buy C-17s right before the line closed).

There have been a lot of reports from senior figures in the US on how they're hedging their bets with late models of current aircraft. Their fleets need to be re-capitalised, but with what remains to be seen. The line may never actually hit full production.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and now the F-35 factory is on strike, a stunningly brillant move I must say....

:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Kevin Page's asking for some more info ....

The Parliamentary Budget Office has been asked to update the costs of the F-35 fighter jet.

In an April 23 letter, PBO Kevin Page wrote to the deputy minister at the Department of National Defence to say that his office had received “a new request” from a member of Parliament to “undertake an update” of the lifecycle cost estimate of the F-35.

To do that, Page and his office will need information from National Defence. “I would like to request that DND provide information and documents that provide a full lifecycle cost of the F-35 aircraft, with lifecycle cost being defined in the DND Costing Handbook (Annex II),” Page wrote.

That handbook outlines the department’s definition of a lifecycle cost as being a way to calculate the “total cost of ownership.” According to the guide, lifecycle costing includes the operations and maintenance budget. That O&M budget, it says, should also account for personnel costs, maintenance cost of equipment, and total operating costs for facilities and materials – among others ....

ipolitics.ca, 25 Apr 12

 

[HB_Pencil]

There have been a lot of reports from senior figures in the US on how they're hedging their bets with late models of current aircraft. Their fleets need to be re-capitalised, but with what remains to be seen. The line may never actually hit full production.

Alot of the "reports" are journalist sensationalism. Its fairly telling that in the current budgetary environment, the F-35 emerged relatively unscathed (except for concurrency cuts, but that has been ongoing for the past 3 years.) You have the SECDEF, JCS, Service Chiefs, and Asst. Secretaries all basically saying the same thing: The F-35 is the most critical program and it will be protected at all costs. There is no opposition within the executive at all to the program.

Also the signs are they aren't hedging their bets with current aircraft. The Navy refused to fund the F/A-18E enhanced performance engine upgrade and the stealth pod in recent budgets. Its looking more and more likely that production might end in 2015. The USAF might upgrade some F-16Cs as a gap filling measure, but that's it.


And why would they cut it at this point? Basically the sunk costs are tremendous, restarting development for another fighter to this point would cost nearly as much, if not more if they do not run it as a joint service program. And the fighter is nearing completion, so it doesn't make sense for them to cut it at this point.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Alot of the "reports" are journalist sensationalism.

The RAAF and USN have already ordered Super Hornets because of issues with slipping JSF deadlines. That tends to make reports the USN is considering further orders more convincing.

And why would they cut it at this point? Basically the sunk costs are tremendous, restarting development for another fighter to this point would cost nearly as much, if not more if they do not run it as a joint service program. And the fighter is nearing completion, so it doesn't make sense for them to cut it at this point.

Those are pretty much the same reasons they shouldn't have cancelled the F-22, and we all know how that worked out.

 

[HB_Pencil]

The RAAF and USN have already ordered Super Hornets because of issues with slipping JSF deadlines. That tends to make reports the USN is considering further orders more convincing.

I've recently been corrected by an RAAF member that the Super Hornets purchase had much more to do with the premature withdrawal of the F-111C from their inventory than the F-35. That may have subsequently changed due to additional delays, but the F-111 needed replacement earlier than most aircraft the JSF was projected to replace.

The majority of the USN orders were actually Growler frames I believe. The Navy brass is actually extremely hesitant to procure additional F/A-18s, because they don't see them as survivable platforms for their future programs

Those are pretty much the same reasons they shouldn't have cancelled the F-22, and we all know how that worked out.

Except that they had a replacement in hand, the F-35. The next generation they can look to now is the F/A-XX which currently has a projected in service date of 2030. Furthermore F-22 production ended because the AF could not build additional aircraft unless they were willing to commit to a major avionics overhaul of the aircraft, which could cost hundreds of millions if not billions. They were also aware of the F-22's ruinous O&M costs, and saw the F-35 as an more than adequate replacement.

 

[WingsofFury]

Harper’s promise to evaluate jet purchase amounts to recalculating F-35 cost

STEVEN CHASE AND DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, May. 01, 2012 4:00AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, May. 01, 2012 4:02AM EDT


An office created to oversee the acquisition of new jet fighters is pressing the Department of National Defence to start afresh on its F-35 Lightning purchase and consider whether Canada needs to buy a different plane.

It’s not an option the military or the Prime Minister’s Office relish discussing publicly as Ottawa refines its strategy for dealing with fallout from the Auditor-General’s hard-hitting report on the $25-billion purchase.

But the question is circulating within a new secretariat that is now riding herd on the acquisition process that is being housed at Public Works and managed by deputy ministers from that department as well as Industry Canada and National Defence.

A senior federal official familiar with the workings of the secretariat said that the hope is that National Defence will see the benefits of starting from scratch to address public concern that the military selected the F-35 without considering alternatives.

So far, National Defence has shown no interest in budging from Lockheed Martin’s F-35, with officials there suggesting the only thing that would derail the purchase would be a sharp increase in cost.

In a sign of internal divisions, high-ranking government executives outside National Defence are urging the department at least to consider other options as a way to demonstrate that it really selected the best plane.

“If the military were smart, they would do it themselves, unsolicited,” one senior official said. “There seems to be an overwhelming public appetite to ask why [the government is] asking for this capability, and to be involved in a consideration of whether we should continue.”

That would mean re-examining the Conservative defence policy statement that underpins the decision to pick the F-35: the 2010 document that calls for a “next generation fighter.”

The Harper government promised on April 3 to hit the reset button on the F-35 purchase, but much of a seven-point plan it unveiled to address criticisms in the Auditor-General’s spring 2012 report amount to ensuring it has clear cost information and sharing it with Canadians.

The government’s plan was vague on whether Ottawa would genuinely start the acquisition anew and entertain alternative procurements – saying only that that it would “continue to evaluate options” for a 21st century fighter.

National Defence signed on to the F-35 program in 2006, and the government effectively etched the acquisition in stone in 2008 with its Canada First Defence Policy, which determined that the U.S.-built jet was the only option to replace the military’s CF-18s.

Philippe Lagassé, an expert on military procurement at the University of Ottawa, said the government’s response to the Auditor-General’s report will be meaningless if the defence policy is not on the table.

“Will the secretariat receive a mandate to continue with the F-35 acquisition, or will it be asked to re-evaluate the entire process?” Mr. Lagassé said in an interview.

The ideal situation, he said, would be for National Defence to launch a cost-benefit analysis that could outline for Canadians the price of various aircraft in relation to their capabilities.

He said the government should entertain competing bids before selecting an aircraft.

“The government should call on the Canadian Forces to rewrite the [statement of operational requirements for the new jets] to allow for other aircraft to enter into a competition,” Mr. Lagassé said.

The Prime Minister’s Office isn’t ready to address whether Canada must consider other aircraft.

The first order of business, it says, is to obtain reliable figures on the cost of the F-35.

“First things first. We have to get a proper accounting of where we are,” said Andrew MacDougall, director of communications for the Prime Minister’s Office.

“We’re not going to get into hypotheticals.”

At the public accounts committee of the House last week, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson did not specifically reject sole-sourcing the F-35 contract, nor did he state that Ottawa had to launch a competition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-promise-to-evaluate-jet-purchase-amounts-to-recalculating-f-35-cost/article2418611/

 

[Remius]

Several DMs appeared before comittee this morning.  Didn't go too well for ours.

 

[WingsofFury]

I want to preface this by stating that I'm not in the military, nor do I have any extensive knowledge about the procurement process.  I just happen to believe that the F-35 is the right choice based on the public information that I've read up to this point.

Is it just me, or does a committee meeting like the one we saw this morning really serve any purpose if the information being released is the same as what has been made available during the entire past discussion surrounding the aircraft?

And why is it that the opposition parties are trying to equate potentially erroneous political actions to the successful performance numbers presented on the F-35 during its testing?  IMHO, the two are vastly different topics which shouldn't be combined.

I think I'm just getting frustrated with the round and round that's going on, with the media attacking the Conservatives because of their bad working relationship with each other and then in turn making Canadians feel that the eventual purchase of F-35's is a bad idea because the plane might be bought by the Conservatives...

 

[cupper]

I want to preface this by stating that I'm not in the military, nor do I have any extensive knowledge about the procurement process.  I just happen to believe that the F-35 is the right choice based on the public information that I've read up to this point.

Is it just me, or does a committee meeting like the one we saw this morning really serve any purpose if the information being released is the same as what has been made available during the entire past discussion surrounding the aircraft?

And why is it that the opposition parties are trying to equate potentially erroneous political actions to the successful performance numbers presented on the F-35 during its testing?  IMHO, the two are vastly different topics which shouldn't be combined.

I think I'm just getting frustrated with the round and round that's going on, with the media attacking the Conservatives because of their bad working relationship with each other and then in turn making Canadians feel that the eventual purchase of F-35's is a bad idea because the plane might be bought by the Conservatives...

Both sides are trying to score political points for their future election aspirations. Unfortunately it is the people in uniform that get f'd over by all of it.

 

[Remius]

Wings of Fury:  This morning's comittee meeting was to see if there was any issues with what DND and other departments may have known, what the government knew and what the public and the House of Commons were told.  This is in relation to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the AG claim.  This morning, it was said that the the Government was made aware of both costs.  The lower 15 Billion and the Higher 25 Billion.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is it just me, or does a committee meeting like the one we saw this morning really serve any purpose if the information being released is the same as what has been made available during the entire past discussion surrounding the aircraft?

Is it the same information?  If the info released was consistent with the info we now know is available, there wouldn't be such a fracas from the Auditor General and PBO, no? 

I think I'm just getting frustrated with the round and round that's going on, with the media attacking the Conservatives because of their bad working relationship with each other and then in turn making Canadians feel that the eventual purchase of F-35's is a bad idea because the plane might be bought by the Conservatives...

There are those who also think that if there had been a truly transparent process from the start to answer the questions "what do we need to do re:  protecting Canada?," "how much can we afford?", "what's out there?" and "what should we get, given those two answers?" (sorta like someone way smarter than me puts it here), maybe there would be more faith in the info being shared. 

Then again, given your assessment of the relationship between the current gov't and the media (which I agree with), would we have heard everything even if government had been more transparent?  Who can tell?

Meanwhile, some media highlights of what was said in Committee.....

Deputy ministers this morning defended how their departments have been involved in the F-35 fighter jet file and how the government has communicated the costs of replacing the CF-18s with them to Canadians.

Robert Fonberg, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, rejected parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page's suggestion on the weekend on CBC Radio's The House that the government was keeping two sets of books on the costs —one for internal use and one for public consumption.

Fonberg told MPs on the public accounts committee that "there was one book," but he acknowledged there were two estimates, as laid out in Auditor General Michael Ferguson's spring report that is now the subject of the committee's study. One column in a chart shows DND's internal estimate in 2010 for the F-35s as $25 billion over 20 years, and the second column shows its public response to a report from Page that says the total estimate in 2011 was $14.7 billion.

"One is acquisition and sustainment which is the way that we've reported on each of our acquisitions over the last four major airframe assets, and the other one includes operating costs which we haven't reported on publicly because it's included in the base budget of the Department of National Defence," Fonberg said when asked by NDP MP Malcolm Allen about two estimates ....

CBC.ca

The bureaucracy fired back Tuesday at Canada's budget watchdog over his suggestion the government kept two sets of books on the multibillion-dollar purchase of new stealth-fighter jets.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said in a weekend radio interview that it seemed as if one set of books inside the Department of National Defence contained a higher cost estimate for the F-35 fighters while another, lower number was presented to the public.

"You do get the sense there were different books being kept," Page told CBC Radio's The House on Saturday.

But a senior Defence official told a parliamentary committee his department kept only one set of books, and provided the full cost of the F-35 purchase to cabinet.

"There was one book," said deputy minister Robert Fonberg.

"There was a column on the left-hand side that went to cabinet for decision-making purposes. And the government decided to communicate exactly the same way they'd communicated since 2004 on the acquisition."

The Conservative government froze spending on the defence program last month after the auditor general produced a withering report accusing National Defence of keeping Parliament in the dark about the program's spiralling problems.

Michael Ferguson's report said the public estimate of $14.7 billion does not include the expected $10 billion operational costs, such as the salaries, fuel and other commodities used to keep the aircraft flying.

A parliamentary committee is now studying that report ....

The Canadian Press

Department of National Defence officials insisted Tuesday that the F-35 fighter jet is the only aircraft that meets their needs, while rejecting the cost estimates from both Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and Auditor-General Michael Ferguson.

DND’s deputy minister, Robert Fonberg, told the House public accounts committee his department is standing by their $15-billion cost estimate for the F-35, even though both the Auditor-General and PBO have estimated the purchase of the jets will cost Canada at least $25-billion.

“[Ferguson] got it wrong on the 2008 issue on the $25-billion,” Fonberg said, contradicting Ferguson’s testimony in which he said cabinet was aware of the $25 billion price tag as far back as 2008, not 2010 ....

Postmedia News

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says cabinet ultimately signed off on the Defence Department reporting the cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program as $14.7 billion instead of $25 billion weeks before the last federal election.

“It ultimately goes to cabinet,” MacKay told the Senate defence committee on Monday.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report on April 3 that was highly critical of the way the F-35 file had been handled, particularly the Defence Department’s failure to reveal that the fighter would cost Canada at least $25 billion — $10 billion more than it was reporting to Parliament.

The Conservative government has admitted it was aware of the larger price tag weeks before the last federal election, but MacKay’s comments are the first acknowledgment cabinet was actively involved in reporting the lower figure to Canadians ....

Postmedia News

 

[WingsofFury]

Wings of Fury:  This morning's comittee meeting was to see if there was any issues with what DND and other departments may have known, what the government knew and what the public and the House of Commons were told.  This is in relation to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the AG claim.  This morning, it was said that the the Government was made aware of both costs.  The lower 15 Billion and the Higher 25 Billion.

I understand that, and appreciate you pointing it out.

Realistically though, isn't the higher cost simply calculated by adding factors which, according to the committee meeting, were never included in previous acquisitions?  And if they weren't included in previous acquisitions, then why the need to bring them forth now - regardless of when they were known or not known?

 

[AlexanderM]

I am not military, but I did go through Cornwallis a long time ago, back when we still used the FN.

I am just asking, can we discuss what might be the options if the F-35 program doesn't work out? Would that discussion belong in another thread, or is it a touchy subject?  Just asking.

 

[PuckChaser]

When we purchased the LAV III, did we have to provide a costing to include the salaries of the 11 Infantry soldiers in it (plus a few more for attrition) and IMPs to feed them for 20 years? This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Haletown]

All this stuff happening in Ottawa right now is painful inside the political ballpark kind of stuff.  The Oposition is using any opportunity to oppose, the media is doing their very best to do their job of defeating a government they don't like and 97.5% of Canadians are not paying attention and couldn't care less.


The dog days of summer are almost upon us and the chattering classes will lose interest and move on to the next great political scandal tempest to occupy the fevered teacup minds of the Ottawa chatterers.

Or something like that.