In July 2010, I wrote a column for my local paper, Island Tides, on the government's decision to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets. Now that the Auditor General has confirmed what everyone knew -- that the planes were wildly over budget and that we were being misled (lied to?) at every turn -- I decided to go back and look at my column.
On the costs I wrote:
"Like many military contracts in the US, the costs of the F-35 have spiralled and are way over budget. In March 2010, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the Congress that it was 'unacceptable' that the F-35 is 50 per cent over-budget. Costs of developing the new fighter jets is approaching $300 billion. With bureaucratic baffle-gab that takes your breath away, the Pentagon critique of the fighter jet programme concluded: 'affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.'"
On the question of whether the F35s met Canadian defence needs:
"Peter MacKay is enthused about the jets. Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets are exciting new toys. They are so exciting that our government did not hold an open contracting process. We only wanted these planes. They can take off and land on aircraft carriers. They have stealth coating. They can engage in air-to-air combat and rely on mid-air re-fueling...We don't have aircraft carriers. We have no plausible security scenario in which air-to-air combat is anticipated. (The Battle of Britain was a long time ago.) And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?
True, our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Our large geography has always led to a priority choice for two-engine planes, so if a plane is in a remote spot and loses an engine, the pilot can get to a safe place to land. The F-35s are single engine planes. Asked what will happen if the engine fails, Peter MacKay replied 'it won't.' We need planes for search and rescue. The F-35 is not appropriate for search and rescue."
My column concluded:
So, it seems Canada is spending money we don't have for planes we don't need. And it seems we are doing this to hold our place in some macho military solidarity with the Pentagon. The opportunity costs of $16 billion for fighter jets is enormous -- in lost opportunities to reduce poverty, create jobs, protect health care and fight climate change. None of this has been debated or discussed in the House. And it was not in the 2010 budget. I will work with other parties to reverse this sale and direct priorities to those Canadians value.
So, I was still using the Harper $16 billion estimate. But when the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, explained that those costs were off by about $10 billion or so in a March 2011 report, I believed him. Stephen Harper questioned him.
The point is that not even willful blindness of the most acute variety can be pleaded by the prime minister in his attack on Page. If I knew the planes were being chosen without criteria or a proper open bidding process, that the whole project was a boondoggle and that Canada was going to be spending $25 billion on planes we did not need, so too did everyone else.
The auditor general's report should be required reading for every voter who thought Stephen Harper had the qualities of a wise manager of the public purse.
Loading Slideshow
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
FIIn this file photo taken on July 14, 2011 and released by U.S. Air Force, a USAF F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft soars over Destin, Fla., before landing at its new home at Eglin Air Force Base. Japan selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011, to replace aging jets in its air force and bolster its defense capability amid regional uncertainty. (AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
A F-35 Lightning II sits on stage during the United Kingdom F-35 Lightning II delivery ceremony on July 19, 2012 at Lockheed Martin Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas. The ceremony marked the first international delivery of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a partner nation. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Plane models stand outside the Lockheed Martin Corporation during the United Kingdom F-35 Lightning II Delivery Ceremony on July 19, 2012 in Fort Worth, Texas. The ceremony marked the first international delivery of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a partner nation. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet sits in front the entrance of the Asian Aerospace 2004 show in Singapore 24 February 2004. The Asia Pacific offers one of the world's strongest prospects for defence-related spending, US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin said Tuesday as it expressed confidence in remaining a major supplier to the region's governments (AFP PHOTO/ROSLAN RAHMAN)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(AFP PHOTO/CARL DE SOUZA)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
A Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lighning II fighter jet sits on the tarmac for static display at the Singapore Airshow in Singapore on February 12, 2012. Boeing's much-delayed 787 Dreamliner is set to star at the Singapore Airshow this week where companies touting private jets and defence hardware to the Asian market will also be out in force. (ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
F35 JSF Take Off
F-35A Flight with External Stores
On Feb. 16, 2012, the first external weapons test mission was flown by an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The F-35A is designed to carry up to 18000 pounds on 10 weapon stations featuring four weapon stations inside two weapon bays, for maximum stealth capability, and an additional three weapon stations on each wing.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
IN AIR, NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, MD - FEBRUARY 11: (EDITORS NOTE: Image has been received by U.S. Military prior to transmission) In this image released by the U.S. Navy courtesy of Lockheed Martin, the U.S. Navy variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, conducts a test flight February 11, 2011 over the Chesapeake Bay. Lt. Cmdr. Eric 'Magic' Buus flew the F-35C for two hours, checking instruments that will measure structural loads on the airframe during flight maneuvers. The F-35C is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear for greater control when operating in the demanding carrier take-off and landing environment. (Photo by U.S. Navy photo courtesy Lockheed Martin via Getty Images)
F-35 First Ship Landing
Courtesy: NAVAIR/JSF Program/Lockheed Martin
F35 Hovering
F-35 Flight Test Highlights
Highlights of F-35 flight testing at NAS Patuxent River, Md., NAS Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, and Edwards AFB, Calif.
F-35 Performs First Night Flight
The first night flight in the history of the Lockheed Martin F-35 program was completed on Jan. 19, 2012 in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Piloted by Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Mark Ward, AF-6, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant, launched at 5:05 pm PST and landed after sunset at 6:22 pm
F-35 Airstart Testing
An F-35 test pilot talks about airstart testing at Edwards AFB, Calif., in early 2012.
In July 2010, I wrote a column for my local paper, Island Tides, on the government's decision to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets. Now that the Auditor General has confirmed what everyone knew -- that the pla...
In July 2010, I wrote a column for my local paper, Island Tides, on the government's decision to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets. Now that the Auditor General has confirmed what everyone knew -- that the pla...
OTTAWA - No hands on deck required.The Royal Canadian Navy is exploring options for unmanned ships, something Defence Minister Peter MacKay says could appear in...
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale is singling out Defence Minister Peter MacKay for failing to deliver on past federal election promises to the...
OTTAWA - Defence Minister Peter MacKay says last week's auditor general report will force the military to recalculate the costs of tens of billions of...
A top Conservative MP responsible for military procurement insists the Conservative government did not mislead Canadians over the costs of F-35s slated to replace...
The pressure on Defence Minister Peter MacKay to step down over the auditor general's scathing report on the F-35 purchase process is mounting. Rex Murphy...
In light of the unprecedented incompetence exposed by the Auditor General on the F-35 procurement scandal, the swirl of parliamentary and media attention surrounding the other simmering scandal of fraudulent robocols has died down somewhat. But the issue will not go away because a fraud occurred and Canadians must find out what happened.
The F-35 scandal has shown how the Prime Minister and senior government officials are very reluctant to penalize anyone, especially themselves. The good government watchdog agencies must all be given the power to penalize wrongdoers with high fines -- to bite not just bark.
The DND released information on the total cost of the program but failed to include billions of dollars in long term costs, a significant item. Who made the decision to release inadequate information? Did no one object internally? When the minister used these released figures, did no one in the department red flag it for the minister to say the number was not completely accurate?
The irony in the whole F-35 aircraft controversy is that no matter how good the strike aircraft may be, its full capacity will probably never be used by Canada. The present CF-18 plane that it is supposed to replace was also never used to its full potential, although it shot up Libyan installations that never fired back.
This makes the 'purchase' of the used subs look pretty minor (although equally incompetent) doesn' it? These planes are new and can't fly. The subs at least used to float . . .
Transitteer: This makes the 'purchase' of the used subs look pretty
Peter MacKay must resign, or the Prime Minister must take immediate responsibility for this serious $10 billion gaffe. Who else will? Establishing a procedure to prevent this 'accounting error' from happening again is not acceptable for a $10B mistake.
Rob_Hines: Peter MacKay must resign, or the Prime Minister must take
The entire debate about which aircraft is suitable for our needs is clouding the true motive of this government.
Flaherty has simply taken Canada from a surplus budgetary position to a massive deficit in order to justify cuts and handcuff future governments. I understand he did the same thing in Ontario when his surplus that he was bragging about was revealed to be an "accounting difference" that left the succeeding government with a deficit of about 5.7 billion.
This bunch not only got rid of a real surplus, but are now tacking an additional 10 billion on top for good measure.
This is the "fiscally responsible" party that has mortgaged the future of our children for their ideologically driven agenda.
Brindling: The entire debate about which aircraft is suitable for our
I agree that Canada doesn't need the F-35 and that we could get better jets for less money elsewhere. But were you seriously working under the assumption at one point that these fighter jets would be used for search and rescue? And one year after we sent seven CF-18s to Libya, you can seriously say, "And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?"
Honestly, with no offense intended, I think you could leave this topic to someone with a bit more knowledge of it.
Andrew_Touesnard: I agree that Canada doesn't need the F-35 and that
based on the number of fans and nobody favouring your comment, its clear why.
the F35 interior weapons and stealth does make it a first strike plane, not primarily air to air like its european cousin. so yet again "And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?"
a legitimate question, but we know the answer. attacking defenceless third world countries doesn't really require air to air capabilities. just bomb them into submission abilities
classy andrew, defending the elite who want to bully and murder third world civilians. classy
Kristopher_Leang: based on the number of fans and nobody favouring your
Wow...it's astounding how out of control your political partisanship is when you toss up such an obtuse post.
Stealth capability in this day and age is essential to avoid sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries on the ground. For instance, should the dictator in Syria continue to massacre his own people with military hardware such as tanks and mortars then maybe Canada would be called upon to send in air support to destroy that hardware in an effort to save innocent Syrian lives. To attempt such a mission without stealth capability would be suicidal for Canadian pilots as Syria posesses vastly superior anti-aircraft systems than Libya brought to bear.
Canada has yet to invade ANY country in its glorious military history. German U-boats were cruising the St.Lawrence seaway though. That is what you call invading! Ah...but that's probably inconvenient history for your bleeding heart eh?
I suggest you post on a subject you're more familiar with. Like maybe how to safely burn a Canadian flag or why hugging trees is groovy man.
John_Hynes: Wow...it's astounding how out of control your political partisanship is
Peter, just has to get someone to take the blame on this, at the very least put him between Mckay and the media. Everything that Peter says makes him appear dumber and dumber. He then should be gently slid from his current position a given a portfolio more inline with his needs and knowledge something like (Outhouse Inspections and Testing,) after his recent stories surrounding the F35's he should at least have no problem finding the raw materials of his new auspicious new position.
Gyice50: Peter, just has to get someone to take the blame
2 Points
1) Years ago at a NATO conference after Trudeau had slashed military spending the President of France told Trudeau, if your going to be a member of the club you have got to pay some of the dues. Thankfully there is no longer a cold war but there are nations with crazy dictators and unfortunately Canada as a G20 nation has to prepared. Not sure if the F35 is what we need but you can find experts on both sides of the issue.
2) There may be a couple instances where the operating costs are included in the overall purchase price but the vast majority of times the operating costs are not included when buying a capital asset. An eg. you don't include the gas, oil and maintenance when determining the price of your car, you may estimate the operating costs to compare, but you don't include the operating costs in your purchase price.
CanadaBob: 2 Points 1) Years ago at a NATO conference after
1) we didnt need the jets during the cold war either, US propaganda constantly and consistently amped up the level of threat, and also capabilities of the soviets. The world has dictators really? well lets look at who has done the most aggressive actions and wars, murdered more civiilians during wars, and sponsored more anti-democratic coups since say ww2. oh right its the United states of america..
2) more dodging
Kristopher_Leang: 1) we didnt need the jets during the cold war
Please name one country in the world that does not controll and defend it's own airspace. Just one. Please name one country willing to let other countries protect it's soveirgnty.
Your knowledge of worldwide strategic concerns is amazing BTW. Real in depth stuff there.
Colin_Speth: Please name one country in the world that does not
I hate to tell you this Bob but the price also lacks Canadian avionics, weapons systems and the cold climate engine requirements. However, with a little luck this number of F35's as costed could defend Vancouver.
kazazajua: I hate to tell you this Bob but the price
the F35's are the least of our problems - we obviously don't even agree on the basic question of what our military should be equipped for. unfortunately, the current 26% "majority" government will not engage in anything as weak-looking as discussion of such an issue.
where have all the statesmen gone?
markhahn: the F35's are the least of our problems - we
Why are we giving billions to Lockheed-Martin? Don't we have a very capable aircraft making company right here at home? Ask Bombardier to design us and build us a jet. They have been making cold weather machines forever. We keep our jobs and our money at home this way.
14Kestrel: Why are we giving billions to Lockheed-Martin? Don't we have
Harper's goal is make Canadians as subservient to the Military Industrial Complex as Americans are. He aims to kill social programmes, kill dissent, steal elections, control the media and make us as militaristic, "patriotic", ignorant and compliant as Americans are. We keep our eye on "big oil", but it's "big arms" we must be equally vigilant against. He wants to starve what is left of an informed, caring nation (CBC, Katimavik, etc) by feeding the greedy, amoral, blood-thirsty beast that is the Mil. Ind. Complex. Please read what Eisenhower said about it in his last address as president. It is just as true now as then. Canada as an independent, thinking nation is anathema to Harper and his puppet masters. Under this neo fascist, we are bound to become the 51st state, if we aren't already.
edmocat: Harper's goal is make Canadians as subservient to the Military
We be rid of these blood-suckers at the next election. I think there might defections from the government side to opposition soon-- keep the pressure on.
rickthaluddite: We be rid of these blood-suckers at the next election.
Flaherty has simply taken Canada from a surplus budgetary position to a massive deficit in order to justify cuts and handcuff future governments. I understand he did the same thing in Ontario when his surplus that he was bragging about was revealed to be an "accounting difference" that left the succeeding government with a deficit of about 5.7 billion.
This bunch not only got rid of a real surplus, but are now tacking an additional 10 billion on top for good measure.
This is the "fiscally responsible" party that has mortgaged the future of our children for their ideologically driven agenda.
Honestly, with no offense intended, I think you could leave this topic to someone with a bit more knowledge of it.
the F35 interior weapons and stealth does make it a first strike plane, not primarily air to air like its european cousin. so yet again "And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?"
a legitimate question, but we know the answer. attacking defenceless third world countries doesn't really require air to air capabilities. just bomb them into submission abilities
classy andrew, defending the elite who want to bully and murder third world civilians. classy
Stealth capability in this day and age is essential to avoid sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries on the ground. For instance, should the dictator in Syria continue to massacre his own people with military hardware such as tanks and mortars then maybe Canada would be called upon to send in air support to destroy that hardware in an effort to save innocent Syrian lives. To attempt such a mission without stealth capability would be suicidal for Canadian pilots as Syria posesses vastly superior anti-aircraft systems than Libya brought to bear.
Canada has yet to invade ANY country in its glorious military history. German U-boats were cruising the St.Lawrence seaway though. That is what you call invading! Ah...but that's probably inconvenient history for your bleeding heart eh?
I suggest you post on a subject you're more familiar with. Like maybe how to safely burn a Canadian flag or why hugging trees is groovy man.
Lyrics - "Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
1) Years ago at a NATO conference after Trudeau had slashed military spending the President of France told Trudeau, if your going to be a member of the club you have got to pay some of the dues. Thankfully there is no longer a cold war but there are nations with crazy dictators and unfortunately Canada as a G20 nation has to prepared. Not sure if the F35 is what we need but you can find experts on both sides of the issue.
2) There may be a couple instances where the operating costs are included in the overall purchase price but the vast majority of times the operating costs are not included when buying a capital asset. An eg. you don't include the gas, oil and maintenance when determining the price of your car, you may estimate the operating costs to compare, but you don't include the operating costs in your purchase price.
2) more dodging
Your knowledge of worldwide strategic concerns is amazing BTW. Real in depth stuff there.
Pure hokum on her part.
but please feel free to help me understand how Elizabeth May is trying to deceive us. we're desperately short of political integrity these days.
where have all the statesmen gone?