The Pentagon said Monday it will cancel 13 of the Lockheed Martin strike fighters to save $1.6-billion next year. It also proposed delaying the purchase of 179 F-35s beyond 2017 to save billions more.
U.S. allies, many of whom have their own financial problems, have already downgraded their orders for the troubled fighter, which has been plagued with technical problems, delays and cost overruns.
Britain has cut its planned order of 138 F-35s and will not decide until 2015 how many it will buy.
Australia is reviewing its order and is buying 24 Boeing Super-Hornet fighters because of delays to the Lockheed jets.
Turkey has halved its order; Italy is said to be considering cuts of around 30 planes; the Netherlands has put its plan to buy 85 F-35s on hold; and, Norway is waiting until this summer to decide whether to buy more planes to add to the four it purchased last year.
Yet, amid the wavering of our allies, the song from Julian Fantino, the Associate Minister of Defence, has remained the same. Canada’s plan is on course, there has been no increase in price and anyone who says otherwise isn’t willing to give the men and women in the military the tools they need.
But Mr. Fantino’s broken record routine may have to change in light of the new U.S. military strategy and budget plan — as much because of politics as logistics. There are concerns that a slowdown in production schedules will raise the unit price of aircraft that the U.S. Government’s Accounting Office has already estimated at twice the price claimed by the Conservatives. The Harper government has said the F-35 will cost no more than $75-million per plane because they will be made at a time of “peak efficiency.” There are also worries that the existing CF-18s will be out of service by the time the unproven F-35s are ready.
One way around this would be to follow Australia’s lead in ordering a small number of Super-Hornets to bridge that gap, at a much reduced price of around $55-million per plane (and with cheaper training and maintenance costs). The U.S. Navy recently bought additional Super-Hornets, using what had been F-35 cash. Advocates of this plan point out that planes on domestic patrol don’t need stealth capability.
But the real impetus for the Conservatives to change course is as likely to be political. The opposition parties have started to link their attacks on the F-35 to the government’s as yet undefined plans to raise the age of retirement for Old Age Security.
Peter Julian, the NDP finance critic, led off Question Period Monday referring to the F-35 “boondoggle” and “fiasco” that will be paid for on the backs of Canadian seniors. “It’s a question of choices and priorities,” he said.
This could be a potent line of attack for the Opposition, if Canadians can be persuaded that a multi-billion-dollar fighter plane that doesn’t work is being paid for by cutbacks to pensions that we don’t need to make, if the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to be believed.
Mr. Julian continued to link the fighter jets and pension cuts when interviewed outside the House. Public opinion is turning against the government, he said, “because Canadians are reading every day about another country that’s stepping back from the F-35s.”
Given the concerns about the useful lifespan of the CF-18s, and emerging political consideration, the government could solve two problems at once by issuing a tender for a limited number of a cheaper plane to fill the gap, while waiting to see how the F-35 develops. No contracts have been signed, so we’re not yet on the hook, and Canada’s continued involvement would ensure Canadian companies are not cut out of the supply chain.
There is every chance we will see a softening in the government line in the coming weeks, even if it’s unlikely Mr. Fantino will admit the F-35 is potentially the biggest technological dud since Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: John Ivison
No comments:
Post a Comment