Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35

Full story: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ware-the-f-35/

The sorry tale of the F-35 stealth fighter jets just got worse, and not because Auditor General Michael Ferguson is issuing a report on the Department of National Defence’s procurement process next week. For it has emerged that F-35s suffer from — believe it or not — flaky skin.

The ability of F-35s to avoid radar detection depends on a “fibre mat,” which is cured into the composite surfaces of the aircraft.

In December 2011, a test version of the F-35 for the first time achieved the design speed of Mach 1.6. According to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the flight caused “peeling and bubbling” of the stealth coating on the horizontal tails and damage to the engine’s thermal panels, and the entire test fleet was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.

Repairing and replacing stealth materials is a time- and technology-intensive process that reduces the “mission capable rate” of aircraft. Indeed, it has been reported by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that after five years of service the F-35’s sister plane, the F-22, has a mission capable rate of just 60%.

If the F-35 has a similar mission capable rate, Canada will, at any given time, only be able to deploy approximately 44 of its planned 65 planes. When attrition through accidents is factored in — and Canada has lost 18 of its CF-18s since 1982 — we could soon have an available fleet of just 30-35 planes, or roughly half of what the Department of National Defence says we need.

We’ll also be paying for billions of dollars in additional costs, which might explain why the Canadian government has not released any projections about the maintenance contract it will have to sign with Lockheed Martin, nor indicated whether that contract will be negotiated together with, or after, the contract to purchase the planes.

Anyone who thinks that we’re exaggerating these risks should consider the so-called “legacy costs” imposed by our blind-eyed procurement of submarines from the British Navy.

In 1998, Canada bought four second-hand Upholder class submarines for $750-million. Since then, over $3-billion has been spent on repairs, overhauls and upgrades.

Some of that money went toward refitting the submarines to fire MK-48 American torpedoes. The first test torpedo was fired only last month, 14 years after the submarines were purchased.

Equipment-related accidents have also stricken the fleet: A deadly fire within hours of the first sailing; a dented hull that prevented submerging; and a crash into the ocean floor off British Columbia that, had it compromised the pressure hull, could have resulted in the loss of the vessel and all 48 of its crew.

The international arms trade is based firmly on the motto “buyer beware.” Legacy costs arise when procurement decisions are made without fully investigating all of the financial implications of new equipment, including maintenance. The risk of such costs only increases when decisions are made to acquire unproven technologies such as stealth.

We know the F-35 program is in crisis. Our ally Australia has acted responsibly, buying 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure while it carefully re-assesses the situation.

Isn’t it time for Canada to craft its own “Plan B”?

National Post

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. Stewart Webb is a research associate with the Salt Spring Forum. They are the authors of “Canada’s F-35 Purchase is a Costly Mistake,” published last month in the peer-reviewed Canadian Foreign Policy Journal.

Between this, software problems, lack of radio operation in the Arctic, lack of blue force tracking, collapsing bulkheads, cracks in the airframe, issues with the oxygen supply system, weight issues, plus the fact that the helmet mounted display doesn't work... Can someone please remind me why our government and the supporters of this flying farce want us to have this plane?

[red-paladin]

I think we have to also admit that the US is past it's prime when it comes to technology.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think we have to also admit that the US is past it's prime when it comes to technology.

Not necessarily. They come out with good stuff and good ideas, but their military-industrial complex is a growing problem, and when you combine it with a vast and ineffective bureaucracy, throw meddlesome politics into the mix and we're left with stuff like the F-22 and F-35; problem-ridden hangar queens.

[Dale]

I think it's safe to say that Lockheed Martin's work has not been impressive.

[Doug]

Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Doug

Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.

That's a rather extreme exxageration, and many of the involved development partners are either cutting back orders, delaying, or considering backing out entirely.

[Canadian Mind]

I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?

Designed to meet Russian needs, which are very similar to ours, and they've either replicated similar american technology, or outright stole it for their own aircraft. In this case, the Pak Fa, which is purported to have a longer range, is faster than (both cruise and top speed), and more manueverable than either the F-22 or F-35. Not to mention very durable and robust landing gear, and a take off run of 1500 feet and a landing run of 1300 feet with inferior engines (New ones are in development which will give the aircraft up to 75 000 pounds of thrust). These are better numbers than a Herc, famed for it's STOL abilities. Even if it isn't as stealthy as an F-35, it is purported to be an overall superior aircraft, at 1/2-1/3 the price of the F-35 and F-22. And unlike the American's with the F-22 and some technology built into the F-35, the Russians and Indians are willing to export. Not saying this is what we should be looking at, I'm just curious about any possible hang ups.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?

Designed to meet Russian needs, which are very similar to ours, and they've either replicated similar american technology, or outright stole it for their own aircraft. In this case, the Pak Fa, which is purported to have a longer range, is faster than (both cruise and top speed), and more manueverable than either the F-22 or F-35. Not to mention very durable and robust landing gear, and a take off run of 1500 feet and a landing run of 1300 feet with inferior engines (New ones are in development which will give the aircraft up to 75 000 pounds of thrust). These are better numbers than a Herc, famed for it's STOL abilities. Even if it isn't as stealthy as an F-35, it is purported to be an overall superior aircraft, at 1/2-1/3 the price of the F-35 and F-22. And unlike the American's with the F-22 and some technology built into the F-35, the Russians and Indians are willing to export. Not saying this is what we should be looking at, I'm just curious about any possible hang ups.

My concern with russian hardware is whether the entire electronics/radar sysems would need to be replaced, and how much maintenance they would need. As for the electronics, I would be more comfortable relying on Euro/US parts and support for those systems, than Russian.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?

Because we trust the Russians even less than we trust the Americans. Maybe if we could do as jlousa said and install NATO computer hardware it could work, but...

Originally Posted by Doug

Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.

I've said this before, I am a huge fan of the Saab JAS-39 Gripen. It may be a bit of an older design, but it's tried and true. Agile and quick, it's also reliable and easy to maintain, practically the polar opposite of the F-35. If it were up to me, I'd be heading to the Swedes. Not just because they've always been masters at marrying reliability and functionality, but they're also a small democracy without any ulterior motives, and they're probably more willing to provide us with technical data (for maintenance purposes) than our American or Russian friends are.

[earl69]

Originally Posted by Dale

I think it's safe to say that Lockheed Martin's work has not been impressive.

Are you referring to this project or LM overall? Clarify.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by earl69

Are you referring to this project or LM overall? Clarify.

I think it's safe to assume that he was referring to the F-35.

[MolsonExport]

^certainly might save a buck or three. For that kind of money, you expect more. Just sayin'

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^certainly might save a buck or three. For that kind of money, you expect more. Just sayin'

My recommendation?
Buy 100 Super Hornets and add more Cyclones (Navy Helicopter), Chinooks (transport Helicopters) and C17 (air Transport)

[RyeJay]

War throughout the world is not mostly fought with weapons; it is fought via economics. From where may a country take jobs? From where may a corporation most cheaply produce?

Do you think the military of the United States -- larger than every country's military, combined -- will protect America against its unimaginable debt to China?

Excessive military spending will cripple the Canadian economy and weaken our war in what is the global economy. Of course we need to reasonably maintain our military, especially now that Canada will have to protect an iceless northern coast in the coming decades, but the deal for the F-35s is clearly not something Canada can afford.

More to the point: the government concealing the details of this procurement cannot be trusted for future procurements.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

... the deal for the F-35s is clearly not something Canada can afford.

Poppycock. We can very very easily afford it. It's less than 0.6% of the budget (don't forget to spread the assets over their 30 year lifespan). Around $100 per year per income earning Canadian (I.e. not kids, jobless, etc.). Not even a coffee a day.

Whether we want it or not is another question (NO for me); but it is very easily affordable.

Incidentally, 120km of new subway line in our metropolitan areas is just as affordable. We choose not to do it.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by rbt

Poppycock. We can very very easily afford it. It's less than 0.6% of the budget (don't forget to spread the assets over their 30 year lifespan). Around $100 per year per income earning Canadian (I.e. not kids, jobless, etc.). Not even a coffee a day.

Whether we want it or not is another question (NO for me); but it is very easily affordable.

Incidentally, 120km of new subway line in our metropolitan areas is just as affordable. We choose not to do it.

No.

It is only affordable based on the low-balled numbers. The amount released from the Conservatives was a lie; please remember that. When all of the honest costs, including fuel, maintenance, weapons, etc are taken into account then this deal is certainly not affordable as it currently stands.

There are different jets we may consider, if not fewer F-35s.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

No.

It is only affordable based on the low-balled numbers.

I used $35B for rough estimates. Lets triple that though to $100B.

At $100B for the F35 project we have an actual cost to your pocket book roughly equal to 1 cup of cheap coffee (Tim Hortons, not Starbucks) per day.

If a daily Tim Hortons coffee is prohibitively expensive then as a country we doomed to a 100% personal bankruptcy rate by the end of the year. Can't imagine the world of hurt those Starbucks drinkers are in for.

My problem is your definition of affordable and unaffordable doesn't actually fit what we can and cannot pay.


I am against the purchase. Please use a real argument like "unacceptably high cost", or "alternatives are cheaper", or "lack of competitive tendering", or "government should be more transparent", or even "Canadians should have been consulted first".


Saying they are unaffordable hurts those who argue against the Jets because it makes us as a group look like idiots.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by rbt

I used $35B for rough estimates. Lets triple that though to $100B.

At $100B for the F35 project we have an actual cost to your pocket book roughly equal to 1 cup of cheap coffee (Tim Hortons, not Starbucks) per day.

You may keep your Tim Hortons over which you're obsessing, and instead give back the federal jobs that were cut. Give back the CBC funding, and the enironmental funding; and while you're at it please ask Harper to re-pay Canadians for building an artificial lake next to Lake Ontario for the G8/20 summits.

Careful how you ask him, though; I've heard he's quick with a long-gun.

There have been so many different estimates released from so many different groups -- aside from the political parties -- and what is laughable about the entire process is the lack of foresight in the sustainability of the F-35s, with the strong reality of a much smaller tax base from which the military funds must come. It's no secret that fuel costs will continue to rise, as does its demand -- as absolutely everything else will increase in price, including labour. The full-life cost estimates are always based on possible low outcomes, when historically the observable outcome is usually escalates above the mean toward higher costs, especially for military investments.

Also: the Federal Conservatives are illegitmate.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by rbt

I used $35B for rough estimates. Lets triple that though to $100B.

At $100B for the F35 project we have an actual cost to your pocket book roughly equal to 1 cup of cheap coffee (Tim Hortons, not Starbucks) per day.

If a daily Tim Hortons coffee is prohibitively expensive then as a country we doomed to a 100% personal bankruptcy rate by the end of the year. Can't imagine the world of hurt those Starbucks drinkers are in for.

My problem is your definition of affordable and unaffordable doesn't actually fit what we can and cannot pay.


I am against the purchase. Please use a real argument like "unacceptably high cost", or "alternatives are cheaper", or "lack of competitive tendering", or "government should be more transparent", or even "Canadians should have been consulted first".


Saying they are unaffordable hurts those who argue against the Jets because it makes us as a group look like idiots.

This is not a valid argument favor/against this (or any other) government expense.

CBC funding is what, 5 cents/day/Canadian? 32 nickels = $1.60 (medium double-double of Rim's coughee). Heck, that ain't even 12 coffees a year!

How about the equation of 4 planes = HSR from QC to Windsor?

[eemy]

That's the most asinine argument I've heard in a long time. How many cups of coffee is too much?