| Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement | |
|---|---|
| A wooden mock-up of the F-35 in Canadian Forces markings, 2010 |
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement has been the source of much controversy within Canada. The F-35 program was conceived from the start of the project as having participation from many countries, most of whom would contribute to the manufacture of the aircraft as well as procure it for their own armed forces.
Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program from its beginning in 1997, investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level-three participant, along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002, making them an early participant of the JSF program.[1][2]
On 16 July 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornets for C$16 billion (with all ancillary costs included) with deliveries planned for 2016. The intention to sign a future sole-sourced, untendered contract and the government's refusal to provide detailed costing became one of the major causes of the finding of contempt of Parliament and the subsequent defeat of the Conservative government through a non-confidence vote on 25 March 2011. This directly lead to the F-35 purchase becoming an issue in the Canadian 2011 federal election.[3][4][5][6][7]
The Canadian government has only stated an intention to purchase the F-35, no contract will be signed until at least 2013. If Canada were to decide not to proceed with the contract there would be no cancellation fees, although Canadian aerospace contractors might lose future F-35-related contracts as a result.[8] Should they purchase the aircraft, Canadian pilots may receive flight training for the F-35 either from the United States Air Force or from a fee based contractor. This would allow the Canadians to devote more of their aircraft to their operational fleet.[9]
Contents
|
Alan S. Williams of Queen's University, the former Defence Assistant Deputy Minister Matériel who signed the industrial participation agreement, has indicated that he believes that Canada's rationale for joining the JSF project was not due to an urgent need to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18 Hornets; instead, it was driven primarily by economics.[1] Through Canadian government investment in the JSF project, Williams says that Canadian companies were allowed to compete for contracts within the JSF project, as there were fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program would severely damage the Canadian aviation industry.[1] Joining also furthered Canadian access to information regarding the F-35 as a possible contender when it eventually plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet fleet. Improved interoperability with major allies allowed the DND to gain insight on leading edge practices in composites, manufacturing and logistics, and offered the ability to recoup some investment if the government did decide to purchase the F-35.[1]
As a result of the Canadian government investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canadian JSF involvement from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.[1]
When the government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s on 16 July 2010 in a sole-sourced and untendered contract it propelled the acquisition into the national spotlight. Opposition Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff immediately called for the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to reconvene as soon as possible and examine the purchase, calling it a "secretive, unaccountable decision to proceed with this contract." Ignatieff indicated at that point in time that they would put the sole-sourced contract on hold should they form the next government. The purchase announcement created immediate Canadian media speculation that, with the national opposition parties uniting against the sole-source contract, this contract might bring down the minority Conservative government and force an election over the issue. The media criticized the aircraft as being too expensive, too short-ranged and too complex for Canada's needs and also questioned the use of a single engined fighter to patrol the airspace of a country as big as Canada.[5][6][7][10][11][12][13][14][15] Moreover, Leonard Johnson, a retired Canadian air force Major General and former commandant of the National Defence College said, "It’s hard to see any useful military role for the F-35. The age of major inter-state war between developed nations has vanished, so why prepare for one?"[16]
There has also been much support for the program. MGen Tom Lawson, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, said that the stealth of the F-35 could be helpful in defending Canada's sovereignty as Russian bombers would be faced with an "undetectable threshold".[17] Some members of the opposition Liberal party, such as retired general Romeo Dallaire and former Quebec Liberal MP Jacques Saada have sided with the Conservative government's purchase of the F-35s. Dallaire has referred to the F-35 as an "excellent" fighter and has suggested Canada should actually purchase more than the contracted 65, while Saada, the current head of Quebec's Aerospace Association (AQA), claimed the contract was the culmination of a "very serious" competitive bidding process in the late 1990s - countering the claims of the two opposition parties.[18]
The Montreal Gazette reported in September 2010 that the Canadian Air Force had planned to hold a competition in 2010, with a contract awarded in 2012 and the new aircraft to be operational between 2018 and 2023 to replace the CF-18 fighters which must be retired no later than 2020, when the sole sourced contract was announced.[19]
In September 2010 Prime Minister Harper started referring to the Canadian aircraft as the CF-35, although officially the Department of National Defence officially called the "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter" as recently as March 2011.[20][21]
On 6 October 2010 retired Defence Assistant Deputy Minister Matériel (ADM) Alan Williams testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee regarding the sole sourcing of the F-35 deal, an aircraft that the Canadian media have started referring to as the Flying Credit Card - with no prefixed spending limit. Williams was the ADM who signed the original Canadian F-35 industrial participation contact. On the stand Williams indicated the lack of a proper competition for the new fighter contract would likely squander billions of dollars in both tax dollars and lost business opportunities, stating "Procurement demands not only the highest degree of integrity, but also the appearance of the highest degree of integrity. Undertaking sole-source deals leaves the procurement process more vulnerable to fraud, bribery and behind the scene deal making and leaves the federal government more susceptible to such charges." Williams labelled Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s logic in defending the F-35 file as "flawed" and that it "insults our intelligence". A "furious" Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to Williams' testimony, attacking his integrity and accusing him of changing his mind on the contract. Williams in turn responded to the Prime Minister stating "That’s a lie" and "I’ve never ever changed my opinion about sole-sourcing. I have no idea to what he’s referring to. I take great offence to that."[22]
On 14 October 2010 the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives issued a report examining the proposed F-35 purchase entitled Pilot Error - Why the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter is wrong for Canada. CCPA research associate, Rideau Institute president, and co-founder Ceasefire Canada Steven Staples stated: "Canada does not need the F-35, either for North American/domestic roles or for expeditionary roles. The Canadian government should not proceed with the planned procurement of the F-35". Staples added that the proposed purchase "has put Lockheed Martin in an extremely strong bargaining position in future negotiations over maintenance costs." While the federal government has claimed the purchase will create aerospace jobs in Canada, Staples wrote: "such claims are dubious at best" and that the F-35 contract contains "none of the spelled out 'offsets' that are typically built into such procurement projects." Staples concludes in the report; Canada should: curtail the expeditionary role for Canadian fighter aircraft; stretch the life of Canada’s existing CF-18 fleet by restricting the aircraft to the North American/domestic air surveillance and control role; investigate the acquisition of a fleet of unarmed long-range, long-endurance pilotless aircraft for domestic and coastal surveillance, assistance in search and rescue, surveillance on overseas missions, and eventually the North American/domestic air control task; and use the money saved by the above measures to contribute to Canadian and global security in more effective ways.[23][24]
On 26 October 2010 Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, identified "troubling" systemic problems, rigged competitions and cost overruns in government defence procurement programs and indicated that the F-35 purchase could be expected to cost far more than the budgeted numbers indicate.[25] Following Fraser's report Liberal leader Micheal Ignatieff stated that if elected a Liberal government would cancel the sole-sourced deal and hold a formal competition to replace the existing CF-18 fighters.[26]
Retired Lieutenant-General Angus Watt in October 2010 said of the F-35 "It’s the best of all the available choices. It provides the best value for money, the best platform to address the security needs of Canada through to 2050, which is probably how long we’ll have this airplane." He also mentions that any competition for a replacement jet fighter would be fought over undermining the specifications, rather than offering alternative fifth generation jet fighters, as there are none. When manufacturers fight over the specs it could paralyze the procurement department, for example the SAR fixed wing replacement aircraft. The F-35 gives us a jet at the beginning of its technological life span. If you buy a jet at the end of its life span, that means in five to ten years it’s going to be obsolete. That means you’re going to have to try to add technology and that’s really tough. The growth potential, the ability to evolve this jet over the next 30-40 years, far surpasses anything else on the market. In response to one criticism of the F-35, that stealth is not needed Watt responded, "Stealth is not some voodoo technology that lets you go in and willy-nilly take over Third World nations at will. It simply allows the pilot to survive. It isn’t necessary for every mission, but for some. For instance, reconnaissance. They can go quietly into territory, undetected, and come back safely. Or they can do a mission like the Kosovo bombing campaign, where there was a fairly sophisticated air defence system, and come back completely safely." [27]
In early November 2010 representatives of both Boeing and Dassault Aviation made formal complaints in front of a Canadian parliamentary committee saying that their products were not considered as Canada's new fighter. The companies claim that their F-18 Super Hornet and Rafale would satisfy all Canadian requirements, but that Canadian Defence officials did not even request detailed information on these aircraft.[28] In December 2010 Eurofighter and Saab offered their own fourth generation fighters for much less than the F-35, but the Canadian government said again that the F-35's stealth was the best way to ensure that future Canadian pilots could complete their missions and return safely.[29]
A national poll was conducted by Abacus Data between 29 October and 1 November 2010, indicated that Canadian were evenly split on support of the F-35 purchase with 35% in support and 37% opposed. The same poll stated that 57% of Canadian either wanted to increase military spending, or keep it the same, as opposed to 29% who wanted to decrease it.[30]
In a national public opinion poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates between 3–9 November 2010 a majority of Canadians, 54%, opposed the purchase of the F-35 by the Canadian government. The largest result group were those who "strongly oppose" the purchase, at 34%. The same poll showed that overall support for the Conservative government had fallen below 30%.[31][32]
In a December 2010 press briefing, staff from the Canadian Forces Directorate of Air Requirements stated that the F-35 was the only aircraft that matched their list of 14 mandatory and 56 less absolute requirements. They claimed that the list was not devised to ensure that only the F-35 met these requirements, but that the list could not be revealed to the public because the requirements are "highly classified," and "a question of national security."[33]
By late 2010 Canada's political parties had outlined their positions on the proposed F-35 purchase. The Conservatives had declared it their top defence priority, the Liberals indicated that they would hold a competition to determine a new fighter, the New Democratic Party was opposed to the purchase and the Bloc Québécois were in favour of it only as long as Quebec aerospace firms get a share of the work.[34][35][36]
The January 2011 announcement by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the F-35B variant would be put on two years probation due to on-going delays, overruns and program development difficulties and that the F-35 program as a whole was suffering "ongoing development issues" caused reaction in Canada. Major General Tom Lawson, the assistant chief of Canada's air staff stated, "I say without hesitation ... this is the only aircraft for the future." DND officials also issued assurances that Canadian F-35 deliveries would not be delayed due to the US moves. However Marc Garneau, opposition industry critic responded, "You can say that there's nothing new here that affects Canada. But all of the concerns that we've expressed in the past continue to exist. And I, from my point of view, feel that we're not out of the woods with the development of this aircraft...We should be only looking at an aircraft that is certified, developed, and for which we have a firm cost and a delivery. And that's obviously not the case today." NDP national defence critic Jack Harris said "It indicates that the program itself has significant flaws."[37]
By mid-January the government continued to aggressively defend the F-35 purchase, drawing parallels with the Liberal cancellation of the EH-101 in 1993. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made campaign-style speeches at aerospace plants in an attempt to gain support for the purchase. The Liberal response included accusing Harper of hypocrisy, as the records indicate he was in favour of the EH-101 cancellation at the time. Liberal industry critic Marc Garneau explained his party's position on holding a competition to choose a new fighter, saying "We know we can get a better deal for Canadians, with guaranteed offsets." He also questioned the utility of a short-range, single engine fighter to Canada, adding "all things being equal, two engines are better than one."[38] General Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Defence Staff, entered the debate in January 2011 to counter a new Liberal Party advertising campaign[39] questioning the purchase of the F-35. In an interview with the Globe and Mail Natynczyk stated, "From my perspective, the F-35 is the best aircraft with the best value for Canada...The cost per unit is the cheapest for any fourth- or fifth-generation aircraft".[40]
In January 2011 the government also enlisted the aid of two retired air force Generals, Paul Manson and Angus Watt to write a vigorous defence of the purchase for the media, entitled The truth about those jets. Their position, particularly about the lack of need for a competition, was refuted by former Assistant Deputy Minister Alan Williams who said "For Canada to commit to purchase an aircraft without knowing for certain what it will cost nor how it will perform operationally makes no sense. If the F-35 is, in fact, the best aircraft for Canada it will win a competition. I cannot understand why its supporters are fearful of subjecting it to an open, fair and transparent competition." Other industry observers pointed out that while Manson had described himself as a former Chief of Defence Staff in his article, that he had neglected to mention his chairmanship of Lockheed Martin Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Steven Staples, President of the Rideau Institute, said "While this fact in no way disqualifies the generals from sharing their opinion, it is an important truth about the F-35 debate that the stealth fighters' strongest backers are the military and the aerospace companies. In fact, it's getting awfully hard to tell them apart." In February 2011 opposition critic Marc Garneau criticized the government for incurring over C$200,000 in overtime and travel expenses to have military personnel and civil servants defend the political process of acquiring the F-35, calling the use of Canadian Forces officers to sell the aircraft to Canadians "unprecedented". Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert, who reviewed Defence Department public service overtime statistics, stated, "The lines are being blurred between government (workers) and the Conservative party. This is supposed to stand on its own as the best aircraft that we need, so why is it up to civil servants to sell it to the public?"[41][42][43][44]
Canada is planning to purchase the F-35A model, however unlike the F-35C model, the F-35A cannot refuel from Canada's existing tankers, which use the US Navy-style probe and drogue system, nor can it land on the short runways found in Canadian arctic forward operating location bases.[45] However Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said that both issues will be dealt with under the current budget.[46]
The Prince Albert Daily Herald has called the classified nature of the Canadian statement of operational requirements for the F/A-18 replacement "stealth-gate". And has noted that other requirements documents for military equipment have been made public.[47]
On 10 March 2011 the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page presented an analysis of the costs of the proposed Canadian purchase and concluded that the program will cost C$29.3B over 30 years, and not the C$16B to C$18B the government has been claiming and would push per aircraft costs to C$450M each. Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated that cancelling the deal would "endanger the lives of Canadian pilots" and "endanger the sovereignty of this country", although he did not give specifics indicating why that would be the case. In an editorial published on the same day that Page's report was made public The Globe and Mail said, "The PBO raises sharp questions. An accountable government, one that tried to convince on the basis of evidence, would answer them."[48][49][50] The Canadian government has questioned some of the assumptions that Page made, such as the aircraft lasting 30 years instead of the planned 20 so that 10 more years of useful life could be added to the fixed sum. After reviewing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report the opposition Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe was reportedly shocked by the cost and changed his mind on supporting the sole-sourced F-35 purchase and now opposes it as unaffordable, favouring an open competition to choose a new fighter instead. The defence department responded with their own details of $16 billion in costs over a lifespan of only 20 years.[51][52][53] On 23 March Kevin Page responded to the Defence Department's assistant deputy minister who claimed that Page had made mathematical errors in his calculations on both the individual cost of the F-35s and on their long-term maintenance. Page indicated that the latest US Department of Defence estimates are for US$151M per aircraft and that the US would not pay more for the aircraft than its allies.[3][54]
Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, has said that they expect to purchase the aircraft for between $70 and 75 million each, but that number was not firm, but based on conversations with other international customers.[55] He defended the 20 year budget figure and said "It really is the best airplane for the best price with the best benefit to Canadian industry to serve our military's needs for the next 40 years".[56]
Six Canadian media commentators have suggested that part of the reason for the symbolic deployment of half a dozen CF-18s to Operation Odyssey Dawn was to make the case that Canada will require fighters in the future and so help make the case for the F-35 purchase.[57][58][59][60][61][62] Harper and other Conservatives have also suggested that the Libyan mission shows the need for the F-35, while others, such as Winslow Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, disagree. Wheeler pointed out that the Libyan conflict proves that stealth aircraft like the F-35 are not required. Wheeler noted the US did not send its F-22s to Libya and instead has successfully employed non-stealth aircraft, such as F/A-18s and described the Libyan air defences as a joke. Wheeler stated that the F-35 is the "culmination of such malevolent trends" in the USA and concluded it is "a poor choice...for the United States—and for Canada".[63][64] Lockheed had previously replied to the same points by Wheeler by suggesting that the F-35 should be compared on a performance and cost basis against legacy aircraft that had combat equipment added, equivalent to capabilities built into the F-35 itself.[65]
The Canadian aircraft will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a F-35B/C style refueling probe and a drag chute.[66][20]
In March 2011 polling conducted by Nanos Research showed that the majority of Canadians oppose purchasing the F-35. The poll showed that 68% of Canadians agreed with the statement "now is not a good time" to proceed with the purchase of the F-35. 56% of those identified as Conservatives oppose the purchase, as do 75% of undecided voters. Only 27% of those polled supported the purchase. This poll showed increased public opposition to the F-35 purchase over a similar poll conducted in November 2010.[67]
Also in March 2011 retired Defence Assistant Deputy Minister Matériel Alan Williams questioned the government's assertion that the F-35A will only cost $75M each in an article entitled Let's be honest about the price tag on those planes. He stated, "In reviewing the government material tabled on March 17, 2010 before the Parliamentary and House Affairs Committee, it appears to me that the $75-million figure is not the "procurement cost" but rather the "unit recurring flyaway cost", which is merely part of the procurement cost...None of us can know for certain what the final cost to acquire the F-35 will be until we get a firm price quote. As production increases, the costs may drop. Nevertheless, all evidence to date indicates that we would pay over $120 million per aircraft, rather than $75 million, should we decide to acquire this aircraft."[68] Echoing Williams' statements, Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US Government Accountability Office, said he doesn't know where the $75 million estimate comes from. In an interview with CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, he stated "That's not a number that I am familiar with at all" and indicated the price is presently "in the low 100 millions...Probably somewhere between $110-115 million".[69]
On 30 March 2011 the weekly Canadian foreign policy Embassy magazine reported that "While Lockheed says the F-35 A-variant will cost $70 to $75 million, the PBO said on Mar. 10 that this plane will likely cost between $148 and $163 million, twice the original Canadian government estimate. The GAO put out its annual report on the JSF program on Mar. 15 and said there were significant per-plane cost increases as well, putting the cost of each A-variant at $127 million."[70]
After all three opposition parties indicated that they would not support the Conservative party budget presented on 22 March 2011, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff moved a motion of non-confidence in the government on 26 March 2011. The motion declared that the government is in contempt of Parliament over its withholding of costing information for prison construction and the F-35 procurement. All opposition parties supported the motion which triggered the 2011 federal election, with the F-35 purchase a central election issue.[3][4]
On 28 March 2011 the Globe and Mail revealed that the Conservative Party of Canada candidate for the Ontario riding of Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, Raymond Sturgeon, was until December 2010 a paid lobbyist working at CFN Consultants and lobbying the government on behalf of Lockheed Martin. Sturgeon stopped lobbying for the company a month before he won the nomination. The federal government's lobbyists’ registry indicates that Sturgeon was working on behalf of Lockheed Martin in a role described as: "(assisting) in marketing strategy for the sale of aircraft and aircraft components to the department of national defence."[71][72] The riding was not won by Sturgeon, but was retained by NDP MP Carol Hughes.[73]
On the second full day of campaigning, 28 March 2011, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff outlined his primary objection to the F-35 procurement, indicating that its huge price tag would prevent the federal government from properly funding health care in the future. He reiterated that Canada needs a new fighter to replace the aging CF-18s, but that a Liberal government would choose one through an open competition. He indicated that the government has "absolutely got to deliver the right plane at the right price. We can’t fool around here, there’s only so much money to go around" and labelled the government's position on the contract as "deeply irresponsible".[74] Opponents of a competition point to the lack of competitive stealth fighter aircraft on offer to compete against the F-35 while Liberals question the need for stealth in a future fighter.[75]
A national poll conducted in the first two days of the election campaign by Forum Research indicated that more than 60% of Canadians oppose the purchase of the F-35.[76]
On 30 March 2011 Carl Meyer writing in the weekly Canadian foreign policy publication, Embassy magazine, noted: "The F-35 is already promising to be a big issue in Campaign 2011 with the Liberals raising it several times on the hustings. As well, the Conservatives are trying to contain the fallout from the recent revelation that one of their candidates in the current election was a lobbyist until last December for Lockheed. Pollsters say the fighter jet tops the short list of foreign policy controversies that could end up defining the campaign if leaders begin pushing the issue as a ballot box question."[70]
The proposed aircraft purchase has proven to be an issue in some specific riding races in the election. In the Ottawa-area riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills incumbent Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor, a retired Army general and former Minister of National Defence who is currently government chief whip, was challenged by retired Air Force navigator LCol Karen McCrimmon, running as a Liberal. McCrimmon stated that the F-35 is not suitable for Canada because it remains under development, has not been evaluated for cold-weather operations, cannot safely use small northern deployment runways and also is not compatible Canada’s existing inflight refuelling tankers. She has also noted that its single engine makes it unsuitable for use in the Arctic where twin-engined reliability is required. For his part O’Connor defended the F-35 pointing out that it is suitable for Canada because it won an intense, four-year US military competition for their new fighter aircraft. O'Connor stated, "The aircraft is in the final stages of its development: it’s a world leader."[77]
On 3 April 2011 the Liberal party released their policy document for the election campaign entitled Your Family. Your Future. Your Canada. On the F-35 procurement it stated:[78]
A Liberal government will immediately cancel the mismanaged $30 billion sole-source deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets, and save billions of dollars. In the largest procurement in Canadian history, the Harper government never explained why that plane is essential at this time. It still cannot say what the actual price will be, and secured no guarantee for industrial benefits. Other countries, including the United States, are scaling back orders for an aircraft still under development, but the Conservatives charged ahead, despite the facts. There is a more responsible way to proceed. After cancelling the Harper deal, a Liberal government will put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement in light of the new international policy described in this Global Networks Strategy. This review will include Canada’s search and rescue requirements as well as the needs of our air, naval and land forces. When Canada purchases new fighter planes, we will have a transparent, competitive process to procure equipment that best meets our needs, achieves best value for money, secures maximum industrial benefits, and fits a realistic budget.[78]
On 4 April 2011 the Bloc Québécois released their policy platform document entitled Parlons Qc (English: Talk Quebec). The document did not mention the F-35 procurement or the subject of defence at all, but the party has previously stated their opposition to the purchase as a result of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 10 March 2011 report outlining the F-35's estimated costs.[53][79][80]
On 7 April 2011 the Green Party of Canada released their policy document for the election campaign entitled smart economy. strong communities. true democracy. The policy did not specifically mention the F-35 program by name but did state that a Green government would: [81]
Reduce military spending to 2005 spending ratio and reorient to peacekeeping.[81]
The platform indicates that the resulting savings from this one measure would be 2011-12 $3,275M, 2012-13 $3,083M and in 2013-14 $2,615M.[81] The party's detailed policy document also commits to "Support the transition from a Department of Defence into a Department of Peace and Security".[82]
On 8 April 2011 the Conservative Party of Canada released their policy platform document entitled Stephen Harper's Low-Tax Plan For Jobs and Economic Growth. On the subject of the F-35 procurement it stated:[83]
Support Canadian Aerospace Jobs - Stephen Harper’s Government has provided strong support for jobs in Canada’s world-class aerospace industry. Among other things, we have committed to purchasing the next-generation fighter jet, the F-35 – a necessary and responsible investment to re-equip Canada’s air force and to strengthen Canadian sovereignty. The previous Liberal government invested in the development of the F-35, and we supported the decision, because it was and is the best option for Canada. But now Michael Ignatieff and his Coalition partners, the NDP and Bloc Québécois, have promised to scrap it – a reckless and irresponsible promise which would sacrifice $12 billion in possible economic benefits across the country, and kill thousands of Canadian jobs. A re-elected Stephen Harper Government will follow through on the purchase of the F-35, to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces and to support thousands of jobs for Canadian aerospace workers across the country...Strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces ... We have also committed to buying the next-generation fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for our air force. The development of the F-35 is a cooperative program including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey. The F-35 purchase is necessary to replace the current fleet of CF-18s before they are no longer useable, and to ensure Canada’s fighter jets are compatible with those of our NATO allies. The investment will be made gradually over the next 15 years, most of it beginning only in 2015, once the budget is balanced. The previous Liberal government invested in the development of the F-35, and we supported the decision, because it was and is the best option for Canada. But now Michael Ignatieff and his Coalition partners, the NDP and Bloc Québécois, have promised to scrap it – a reckless and irresponsible promise which would kill thousands of well-paid, highly-skilled Canadian jobs and deny the men and women of our air force the modern equipment they need to do their job. A re-elected Stephen Harper Government will follow through on the purchase of the F-35, to ensure our air force personnel have the tools they need to defend our country in the years to come.[83]
In reacting to the Conservative policy direction on the F-35, NDP leader Jack Layton stated, "without question, Stephen Harper's high-risk procurement strategy on the fighter jets places in doubt whether he has the right priorities for Canadian Forces or that he can get the job done” and indicated that decision will lead to "unstable employment, lack of capital investment, high-quality, value-added jobs being shipped overseas." Layton indicated that the country has not had a defence white paper since 1994 and that a new white paper needs to be developed setting Canadian defence priorities before decisions on new fighters can be made.[84]
On 10 April 2011 the New Democratic Party released their policy platform entitled Giving your family a break - Practical first steps. On defence and the F-35 procurement it stated:[85]
We will draft a Defence White Paper, redefining our military’s role, its priorities and needs, to be completed within 12 months. During that time, all major defence projects will be reviewed; We will implement a fair and open process where competitors can offer industrial deals and benefits. Such an open process ensures Canadians get the best price, the military gets what it needs and Canadian industries get the best spin-offs; We will review the proposed F-35 purchase as part of the Defence White Paper.[85]
On 5 April 2011 at a Parliament Hill press conference, Winslow Wheeler, of the Center for Defense Information in Washington discussed the F-35's pricing. Wheeler worked for 30 years in Washington for both Republican and Democratic senators and for the US General Accounting Office. He said of the Harper government's figures that "nobody on this earth" will pay just $75M for their F-35s, indicating that Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's numbers were "by far and away" more accurate than the government estimates for the cost of the aircraft. On the aircraft's performance he stated, "This airplane is nothing to write home about" and added that it is "a gigantic performance disappointment...you're getting an underperforming airplane for a huge amount of money". Wheeler recommended Canada hold a competition to choose a new aircraft instead of a directed sole-sourced buy.[86]
On 10 April 2011 Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that the US will have to pay more for their F-35s but that Canada will get the aircraft at a fixed price that will not affected by any increase or overrun in research and development costs. He said: "On the F-35s, I think we've been clear: there have been detailed briefings from the department of national defence on this, there's a memorandum of understanding that's posted (online). We are sheltered from research and development costs." In criticizing the Liberal plan to hold a competition to choose a new fighter Harper said, "This is a good deal for the country, the fantasy is on the other side. That somehow they're going to come up with some airplane out of thin air and they don't even know what airplane, they're still going to buy planes they say but they don't know airplane and they don't have any agreement."[87]
On 17 April 2011 the Ottawa Citizen and Calgary Herald newspapers reported that the government's C$14 billion program costing does not include engines for the F-35. The engines are listed as “government furnished equipment”, indicating they must be purchased separately. Both the Conservatives and the Department of National Defence responded indicating that the price of the engines is included the overall price.[88][89][90]
Retired Lieutenant-General Angus Watt responded to the engines controversy on 19 April 2011, indicating that the engines are not included in the purchase of the airframe from Lockheed Martin, but are purchased separately from Pratt & Whitney and are included in the price quoted. He indicated that the quote of C$75M per aircraft does not include some spares, weapons or infrastructure costs and thus is not comparable to quoted US costs which do include those items. Watt indicated that if included those would bring the unit costs to about C$138M per aircraft, comparable to current US pricing. He concluded, "the airplane has not suddenly become more expensive. It is simply a matter of which costs you directly attribute to the airplane.[91]
In late April 2011 the Department of National Defence issued a statement indicating that the F-35 unit purchase price would be higher than $75M each, due to cost overruns in the aircraft's development. DND indicated that these increases would be absorbed in the overall project budget. Newly released information supplied by the Pentagon indicates that operating costs will also be much higher than the Canadian government previously indicated, even higher than the Parliamentary Budget Officer had forecast and will total more than C$24B over 30 years for Canada's projected purchase of 65 aircraft.[92][93]
In response to the DND statement Conservative Leader Stephen Harper dismissed their concerns, stating that an extra costs would be covered by contingency funds. To the press questions about his seeming contradiction of DND officials, Harper said, "many of the reports you're citing are comparing apples to oranges. Our experts have put out their detailed figures and everything we've seen is within those figures and their contingencies — the contingencies that have been allowed."[93][94]
Opposition politicians reacted to Harper's statement. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff stated "And the thing that is so mendacious about what the government is doing is that they say to the Canadian people we can get you the plane at the right price. Let me tell you folks. Not even President Obama knows what the planes are going to cost. This thing is out of control." Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said, "What we've said since the very beginning and when Mr. Harper is saying, he [doesn't] want to withdraw a contract, that means there's a contract. It's time until next Monday that he showed us that contract." NDP Leader Jack Layton said, "We've got issues of our own sovereignty, we've got the north, we've got questions of disasters that might take place and equipment that might be required, whether it's elsewhere in the world or right here in Canada. Let's have a full discussion of what the equipment needs are and what the priorities should be."[94]
During the English-language leaders' debate held in Ottawa on 12 April 2011 the F-35 procurement was attacked by all opposition leaders and defended by Stephen Harper. In the debate Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff explained his reasoning for the election, which included the F-35. He said, "I think I explained why we're having an election, which is that we asked for the truth about his jets, jails and corporate tax breaks, and (Harper) didn't tell the House of Commons the truth so he was found in contempt. That's why we're having an election."[95]
In remarks made after the debate Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe attacked the Conservative F-35 price estimates, saying, "Well, I would imagine if you have a contract, you know how much it costs. (Harper) says he doesn't know. He refused to answer that. So we're going from $75 million for a fighter aircraft that probably doesn't even have a motor, that has no attack or defence system in it. Did we buy kites? What did we buy?"[95]
The French-language debate was held the next day, on 13 April 2011 and also prominently featured the F-35 purchase as an issue. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused the Harper government of having "forgotten people" in the recovery from the Late 2000s recession and indicated that the Conservative government intends to spend billions on fighter jets, corporate tax cuts and new super-prisons, while ignoring regional economic development. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe attacked the Prime Minister over the many reports that indicate Canada will pay far more for the F-35 than the government's figure of C$75M per aircraft and challenged Harper to reveal the actual cost of the aircraft.[96]
Harper responded saying, "I'm the only leader on this platform, on this set, who is defending the role of our Canadian and Quebec aerospace sector in the purchasing of airplanes."[96]
Ignatieff pointed out that that even the US, the country that is building the F-35, doesn't know what they will cost. Ignatieff stated, "Even President Obama doesn’t know how much it will cost the United States. That's the first problem. And you have no real idea what the plane will cost you because they're still developing this plane. So we don’t know how much it will cost. And as a potential prime minister I can't accept a plane, the cost of which is increasing."[96]
Speaking in Vancouver on 17 April 2011, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said of Harper and the question of whether engines are included or not, "This guy has gone down to the first car lot and bought the first car he saw. And now we don’t even know whether it has an engine, we’re not perfectly sure it’s got a steering wheel and the wheels might not be in the deal either...The deal here that every Canadian needs to understand about the F-35 is that it is an airplane in development . . . and the costs keeping going up." Ignatieff indicated that US defence department officials are "tearing their hair out at the cost overruns" in the F-35 program. He further stated, "Mr. Harper is going around trying to tell Canadians, ‘I know what this plane is going to cost.’ (U.S.) President (Barack) Obama doesn’t know what this plane is going to cost." Ignatieff agreed that the country's CF-18 fleet will need replacing but said: "but we have to get the right plane at the right price at the right time and that has to be mean a competitive bid."[90]
On 2 May 2011 the election was held, resulting in a Conservative majority government. The New Democratic Party formed the official opposition, while the Liberal party was cut to 34 seats and the Bloc Québécois to four seats.[97]
After the election further details began to leak out, including further delays in the schedule, beyond the retirement of the CF-18s.[98]
On 15 June 2011, ADM Materiel Dan Ross mistakenly testified to the Canadian Parliament that development on the F-35A had already been completed.[99]
In October 2011 it was revealed that the Canadian F-35s as delivered will not be able to communicate via the satellite network used in the Canadian arctic. This deficiency is expected to be addressed in the fourth production phase in 2019, or perhaps later. The military is considering whether a stop-gap solution, such as an external communications pod can be fitted to the F-35[100]
At the beginning of November 2011 The Canadian Press made public the results of access-to-information request responses it had received on the procurement. Defence department documents indicated that the 65 aircraft to be ordered represent the absolute minimum number for the role and that no planning was done for replacement aircraft for the inevitable attrition losses due to accidents. An Air Force Association of Canada source said that this was done to minimize the total purchase price. The reports also noted that current delivery plans indicate that the F-35s would be delivered at the same time that the CF-18s are to be retired, leaving no room for further schedule delays.[101] Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk confirmed on 3 November 2011 in addressing the House of Commons' Defence Committee that 65 is the "bare minimum number" of aircraft needed.[102]
The government expressed no concern about potential delays, now indicating earliest deliveries in 2018 and last aircraft not delivered until 2022, two years after the CF-18 is to be retired. Government officials confirmed that these delays have been accounted for, although retired Lieutenant General George MacDonald, currently a consultant who has worked for Lockheed Martin said, "this delay eats most of that up. So the risk is still not great for Canada. But it's tighter. The schedule doesn't have the flexibility it used to have."[103]
In mid-November it was revealed the first dozen or so F-35s won't be equipped with Blue Force Tracking, software that allows the stealth fighters to communicate with ground forces (a feature designed to prevent incidents of friendly fire), or the Link 16 that helps the fighters communicate with older aircraft. The software isn't expected to be added until an upgrade program is introduced in 2019 – three years after the Royal Canadian Air Force begins taking delivery.[104][105]
In response to the most recent block of production F-35As being purchased by the US and UK at a unit price of US$141-145M each, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in an interview with L'Actualite that the final Canadian purchase may be fewer than 65 aircraft. Fantino said: "We are still talking about it, analyzing it. There is still time, before 2013, to decide the final number. Could it be fewer than 65? Maybe." On 3 November 2011 Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk had stated to the Commons' Defence Committee, "Sixty-five is the minimal operational requirement for us. We need to have these aircraft, both for the sovereignty of Canada and to meet our international obligations as set by the government of Canada." Fantino refused to elaborate when asked about the interview in the House of Commons on 12 December 2011. The opposition used Fantino's remarks to show that the government's insistance that a lower price of US$75M per aircraft for Canada was wrong. NDP military procurement critic Matthew Kellway stated, "It's an acknowledgment that they can't get the plane for the number that they said they could. I think just about everybody else in the world has acknowledged that that's the case."[106][107]
On 28 July 2010 the National Post newspaper reported that IP addresses registered to the Canadian Department of National Defence Defence Research Establishment Ottawa had been used on 20 and 21 July to try to remove text critical of the Canadian government's F-35 purchase from the Wikipedia article on the aircraft. Repeated attempts to remove the text and add insults to the opposition were made by three IP addresses at the establishment. Martin Champoux, DRDC Manager of Public Affairs indicated it was not part of a government campaign to eliminate criticism, stating, "It sounds to me like someone was freelancing. This is not behaviour we commonly condone." Champoux indicated organization IT specialists are attempting to track down the people responsible and that employees will be reminded about government regulations regarding personal computer use. On 31 July 2010, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the IP addresses responsible had been traced to CFB Cold Lake and on 25 August reported they had been further traced to 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters, CFB Winnipeg. "Now it's up to chain of command to pursue that, identify the individual and determine whether disciplinary or administrative action is appropriate," stated Canadian Forces spokesman Navy Captain David Scanlon.[108][109][110][111] The individuals responsible for the edits were never identified by the Department of National Defence and no public announcement on follow-up or disciplinary action was made.
Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff stated on 29 July 2010 that the Wikipedia incidents show the government has "something to hide". He added, "Instead of making the case for Canadians ... saying, 'this is why we need this plane,' they're playing these games with Wikipedia. If you can't prove this case straight up and you have to resort to these tricks, then there's something wrong with the very proposition."[112]
New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton publicly said on 29 July 2010, "Attempting to expunge the realities of debate. I mean what the heck is going on here? We all knew [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper operated a controlling operation, but we didn't think he was willing to go so far as to snatch the words out of people's mouths and pretend they never were spoken. I hope that DND are simply disavowing this practice and will put a stop to it ASAP."[112]
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||