John Geddes

John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

The F-35 jet cost controversy: now we're getting somewhere

by John Geddes on Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:49pm - 116 Comments

Dan Ross Deputy Minister of Defence holds news conference on the acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in Ottawa (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand)

The increasingly heated debate over what it will cost Canada to buy the new F-35 fighter jet has, from the outset, bogged down on one point—the unwavering contention of the federal government that Canada will pay way less per jet than the U.S.

This just seems, on the face of it, difficult to believe. The F-35 story features  many other variables, vagaries, arcane disputes—all accompanied by acronyms and jargon of the sort that military procurement always generates in such unwelcome plentitude.

But that cost-border price differential is the hard part to get past. The Canadian government insists that each jet it buys will cost about $75 million, while numerous stories in the American media about Lockheed Martin’s troubled development of the F-35 Lightning II provide estimates about $20 million higher.

For instance, “Each plane clocks in at around $90 million,” says this recent Atlantic blog posting. And here’s Bloomberg from late last year reporting that the F-35 program “has almost doubled in cost to $92 million a jet.”

No wonder many look so skeptically on that $75 million projection from the Canadian Department of National Defence. Even moreso following last week’s report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which projected the per jet cost at $128.8 million.

Today the Defence department offered reporters in Ottawa a detailed briefing on F-35 costs to refute the PBO’s eye-popping numbers. The department’s Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister for procurement, said the PBO’s key $128.8 million figure is based on an “unsubstantiated average unit cost.” (I have asked the PBO to elaborate on how it arrived at that number, and will post on their answer.)

As for Defence’s own price estimate, that $75 million per F-35 figure is apparently taken straight from what’s called a Selected Acquisition Report, or SAR—a quarterly Pentagon review of the costs, schedules and performance of a U.S. military procurement program. (The facts reported in the SAR seem to be widely relied on and trusted, including by Canada’s PBO.)

There are three main reasons Canada’s jets will cost less than the estimates being reported out of Washington, at least according to Ross at today’s Defence briefing:

—Canada is buying just 65 jets out of nearly 3,000 Lockheed Martin hopes to sell, and Canada has arranged to take delivery on them during the sweet spot in the production run, from 2016 to 2022, when manufacturing costs should be far lower than for the early sales. (The few F-35s made and sold so far have gone for about $140 million a pop.)

—Canada’s deal as part of the F-35 consortium shields it from paying for escalating research and development costs, which are being shouldered overwhelmingly by the U.S. It’s those R & D overruns that are the main reason overall F-35 costs have soared beyond early forecasts.

—Canada is purchasing only the “Conventional Take-off and Landing” version of the F-35, the cheapest of the three versions of the Joint Strike Fighter, and the model with by far the fewest design, development and testing problems. But U.S. reports on the F-35 generally cite the average cost per jet spread across all the three variations.

These explanations for why Ottawa’s purchase might well be less outlandishly expensive than the whole F-35 program, as viewed from Washington, are not unreasonable. So the ball is clearly in Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page’s court.

Page and his crew of number-crunchers have done excellent work as an independent check on government claims about costs, and have earned respect. But their initial report on the jets was not definitive. Valid questions are in the air. It will be interesting to see their response to today’s Defence counter strike.

A final point on this. I have reported before on the Defence department’s explanation of how Canada is getting a deal (at least compared to the U.S.) on the F-35. Understanding the multibillion-dollar price tag is obviously an important element of this high-stakes debate.

Not, however, the most important part. Whether acquiring and maintaining these jets costs $14.7 billion, as Defence forecasts, or $29.3 billion, as the PBO projects, we still have to be reasonably sure that Canada needs them.

Is a fleet of advanced fighter jets really our top military procurement priority? At either price, the implicit answer is yes. I’ve asked what exactly the Joint Strike Fighter is for, and I’m not sure the case has been persuasively made. By all means, let’s probe the price. But let’s consider the purpose, too.

Bookmark and Share
  • Arrow RL206

    The US Navy estimates that maintenance and operations costs for the F-35 will be 30-60% HIGHER than costs for the current F-18 fleet.

    To repeat, in December of 2010, Saab representatives testified to the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence that they could supply 65 Gripen NGs (including 40 years of service and support) for less
    than $6B. We could get, say, 130 advanced Gripen NGs for $12B, have them all built in Canada, get full
    tech transfer, and have enough multi-role planes that can actually dogfight (unlike the F-35). Most crucially,
    we maintain operational sovereignty. We remain a serious country, rather than a protectorate.

    If you agree that 65 aircraft are enough to fill Canada's needs, we could certainly spend upwards of $30B
    on the F-35 to meet that need. Or we could spend less than $6B for 65 Gripen NGs (including 40 years of
    service and support), which would be manufactured in Canada, include full tech transfer, and provide an
    airframe that can actually dogfight (unlike the F-35). That's what Saab quoted to the House of Commons

    Standing Committee on National Defence in December of 2010.

    That's quite a difference…

    This would free up a lot of capital for other defence needs, especially for the naval assets required for arctic
    sovereignty.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Don't you think that pretty much ANYONE who simply questions the wisdom of buying the F-35 without holding a competition thinks that we should just disband the air force? I know you've accused me of thinking that, and I'm actually someone who thinks that we SHOULD buy the F-35s.

  • PeterTare

    I have been told by an engineer who worked on the Avro Arrow that every Friday afternoon there was a fist fight between British and American Engineers over who built the best jet engine. The British engine was apparently very finely machined but expensive. The American engine was thrown together but much cheaper. The U.S. arguement was "Why build an expensive engine when it was only going to be shot down". My question is whether or not in this day and age we really need an expensive manned fighter jet. Would it not be cost effective to invest in low cost robotic aircraft and armed drones. How many cruise missiles can you buy at $1 million a shot for $14.7 Billion?

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    One thing I think we need to do is acknowledge the brilliance of whatever marketing wiz at Lockheed Martin came up with the idea of dividing fighters into "generations" the way Apple does with iPods and iPads. This is how Apple gets people to get rid of the iPad they bought a month ago because they absolutely MUST HAVE the "second generation" with a couple of crappy cameras and a dual core processor that not an app in the app store is optimized to take advantage of.

    It's interesting to see this brilliant marketing ploy spreading to other industries. Thankfully, I already own a fifth generation toaster.

  • John.K

    I just bought a 5th generation toaster – all electronic, with buttons and lights and other cool stuff.

    It looks impressive, but for making toast it's a piece of crap.

  • PeterTare

    Is that the one that toasts on both sides at the same time? Aren't they great.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Ah, see I wasn't kidding about mine either (a Breville, if you care) but mine is actually really good at making toast.

    I do admit that I like the cool lights and the beeping, but what I really like is the "lift and look" button that raises the toast up high enough for me to see how well done it is, and then lowers it right back down for me (unless I hit "Cancel"). It also has a "Little Bit More" button as well which is really nice, and I like how it centres the toast in the slot.

    Of course, it has a "Bagel" function too, but I think that's a fourth generation feature. :-)

From Macleans