The government committed itself to “continue evaluating options” on the CF-18 replacement, but the very name of the new office suggested, in reality, Canadians could have any jet they wanted, as long as it looked like the F-35.
But it is the F-35 Secretariat no longer.
Marc Garneau, the Liberal MP, asked in Question Period if the change of name to the “New Fighter Aircraft Secretariat” was indicative of a shift in policy. He didn’t get much of an answer but government sources confirmed the name has indeed been changed, to avoid giving the impression that the outcome is pre-determined. Asked if that meant a competition for a new jet is likely, the senior Conservative said: “We haven’t closed that door.”
On first blush, it looks very much as if the government is preparing to back away from the F-35. The whole saga has taken a political toll on the Tories, as the costs for the 30-year life-cycle of the jets appear to be close to double the $16-billion they have claimed.
The F-35 took another hit this week with a scathing article – “The Jet that Ate the Pentagon” — in the highly regarded Foreign Policy magazine. It suggested the plane is “simply unaffordable, behind schedule” and a huge disappointment in terms of performance. “The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America’s air force deserves a much better aircraft and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one,” wrote Winslow Wheeler, a veteran military analyst.
Strong words that suggest the new secretariat, whatever name it goes by eventually, would be well advised to keep the door on alternatives to the F-35 wedged open. The new office has been charged with the task of taking a step-by-step look at the jet procurement process.
The starting point of that review should be the 2008 analysis by the Department of National Defence that looked at three contender aircraft and concluded that it needed a fighter with “fifth generation” capability.
Since the F-35 was the only aircraft available to Canada with the modern technology like stealth, advanced radar and integrated avionics, National Defence recommended its purchase without a competition.
But the Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, suggested National Defence was “over-confident” in its ability to contain spending, understated costs and did not provide full information to MPs.
Potentially as damaging as the cost over-runs are the claims made by critics like Mr. Wheeler that the F-35 is a “virtual flying piano” that lacks agility and is grounded far too often for maintenance. “This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35s ‘fifth generation’ characteristics, the most prominent of which is its ‘stealth.’ Despite what many believe, ‘stealth’ is not invisibility to radar, it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles …. The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backwards.”
Others including Conservative MP and former fighter pilot Laurie Hawn claim that Canada should be buying an aircraft at the start of its development cycle, not the end. “We don’t know what threats we will face over the next 40 years and we need to be in a position to be able to advance our capabilities to deal with them,” he said last month.
In addition to the fighter jet secretariat review, the Public Accounts Committee is conducting its own hearings into the CF-18 replacement. Senior officials from the departments of Industry, Public Works, Treasury Board and National Defence will appear Tuesday to give their version of events.
The DND website suggests it will simply reconfirm its advice when asked. A competition could be held but the result would be known in advance. “Going ahead with a competition would be for appearances only,” it says.
Perhaps – but appearances matter. And the government needs to restore some confidence in a process that has been undermined by some figures at National Defence who considered the strictures of operating in a parliamentary democracy to be too cumbersome and inconvenient.
We now need the straight goods from the Conservatives on cost and capability – is the F-35 affordable in the numbers we need? Do we need stealth? Does it really handle like a “flying piano”?
For their part, the Official Opposition needs to act like a viable alternative to the government, focused on the defence of the realm rather than the lopping off of ministerial heads.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: John Ivison
No comments:
Post a Comment