12 août 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

How selecting the Lockheed Martin F-35 could impact Canada’s economy

Posted on August 12, 2020 by Chris Thatcher

The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II has long been considered the favourite to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-188 Hornet. But in a competition now being contested in a weakened economy in which the government faces a ballooning deficit and an uncertain job market, how well each fighter jet scores on acquisition and sustainment costs and economic benefits to Canada – worth 40 per cent of the evaluation – could be almost as important as how well the aircraft meets the Air Force's capability requirements.

The Joint Striker Fighter (JSF) has become the most expensive weapons program ever for the U.S. Department of Defense and could cost more than US$1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan, according to the New York Times. The Department of National Defence in 2013 estimated the full cost of procuring and operating the F-35A at US$45 billion over 30 years. Others have pegged the number far higher.

Furthermore, under the rules of the JSF partnership agreement, to which Canada is a signatory, Lockheed Martin cannot offer traditional industrial and technological benefits (ITBs) to Canadian industry.

If company officials are feeling at a disadvantage, they aren't admitting it.

“We understand the rules, we understand the way the competition is structured and the requirements,” said Steve Callaghan, Lockheed Martin's vice-president of F-35 development and a former U.S. Navy F-18 squadron commander and Fighter Weapons School instructor.

In an online briefing to media on Aug. 6, Callaghan shared the results of an economic impact assessment that suggested selection of the F-35 could impact GDP by almost $17 billion and generate more than 150,000 jobs over the life of the program.

Lockheed Martin submitted its 7,000-page bid on July 31 to replace the RCAF's 94 legacy Hornets with 88 F-35A fighters. The proposal is one of three the federal government received at the deadline for a contract valued at up to $19 billion. Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab's Gripen E are also in the running.

The government may begin negotiations with one or more of the compliant bidders once the initial evaluation is completed, likely by next spring. The final decision is expected in 2022 and first deliveries by 2025.

As the RCAF and Public Services and procurement Canada now begin to evaluate the proposals, Lockheed Martin was keen to remind Canadians the F-35A is the only fifth-generation fighter in the competition. “It truly is a generation ahead of any other fighter in production and can be procured for about the same or less than the far less capable fourth-generation aircraft,” said Callaghan.

Though the Joint Strike Fighter program was originally launched with the intent of developing a more cost-effective family of aircraft with a shared design and common systems, and high production volume to reduce procurement and sustainment costs, the ambitious program has struggled with high development costs and the final price tag.

However, between the second Low Initial Production Rate (LRIP) in 2008 and LRIP 10 in 2016, the cost of an F-35A decreased by about 60 per cent. As Lockheed Martin ramps up to a production rate of about 141 aircraft per year for LRIP 14, its reached a per unit cost of about US$78 million.

The aim now is to bring the cost per flight hour down under US$25,000 by 2025.

“We are putting that same level of focus, that same level of rigour and innovation to reduce sustainment costs,” said Callaghan. “With ... every flight hour, the enterprise gets smarter, more mature, more effective, more on track to meet several critical performance and affordability targets.”

Equally important to a government that will be eying more well-paying jobs in the aerospace sector for decades to come, Callaghan highlighted Canada's involvement in the JSF program. The federal government was the first nation to sign on to the U.S. partnership and to date “more than 110 Canadian companies have contributed to the development and the production of the F-35,” he said, resulting in about US$2 billion in contracts.

According to the economic impact study, conducted by Offset Market Exchange (OMX), a Toronto-based firm that helps OEMs develop their Canadian supply chains and provides analytics to ensure compliance with ITB obligations, the full impact of the program between production (2007 and 2046) and sustainment (2026 and 2058) could result in $16.9 billion to Canada's GDP.

Though contracts are awarded on a “best value” basis among all participating countries, Canadian companies have proven their ability to compete and deliver quality, he added. And suppliers would be building parts not just for 88 aircraft, but likely for over 3,000.

With the F-35 manufactured in the U.S. and many sustainment hubs already selected, several Canadian companies have been raised concerns about access to high-value in-service support work. Though Callaghan wouldn't commit to specifics, he noted that more than 2,500 F-35s could be operating in North America past 2060, resulting in “a large number” of potential sustainment opportunities.

“I think Canadian industry is in a very good position to capture quite a few of those contracts,” he said.

If Canada opts for another aircraft, the current contracts would be honoured “to their conclusion,” but would then be placed up for best value bids to JSF nations, he added.

Though Lockheed Martin is still ramping up production and addressing software issues, the F-35 is a rapidly maturing program. Over 550 aircraft have been delivered and the entire fleet has accumulated over 300,000 flight hours. Eight services, including five outside of the U.S., have declared initial operating capability and the Royal Australian Air Force is expected to do so before the end of 2020.

F-35s have been part of operations and joint and international exercises. Both Norway and Italy have conducted NATO Iceland air policing with their fleets.

“These are indications of the maturity of the program,” said Callaghan. “We are a mature program that is really hitting stride.”

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/f-35-impact-canadas-economy/

Sur le même sujet

  • Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

    8 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

    Matt Gurney One can only imagine the astonishment in Ottawa when a letter arrived from Washington, reminding the Canadian government that military procurement projects are about procuring military equipment, not creating Canadian jobs. I like to imagine flabbergasted bureaucrats reading the letter over and over, before finally putting it down, rubbing their temples and musing aloud, “Don't the Americans realize how things are done here?” They do, it seems. And they don't like it. On Monday, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published a new report, “Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada's Fighter Replacement Fiasco.” The title tells you most of what you need to know about the tone of the report. Author Richard Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging and slowly attritting fleet of almost-40-year-old CF-18 jets. The report mostly covers a story that's been oft-told, including here in the National Post. But it did break some news: apparently, Washington's frustration with Canada is boiling over, and it's not keeping quiet about it anymore. Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging ... CF-18 jets Shimooka's report reveals the existence of two letters previously unknown to the public, sent last year by American officials to Canadian counterparts. The specifics of the complaints involve fairly legalistic and technical aspects of Canada's membership in the international consortium that helped finance the development of the F-35 stealth fighter. Suffice it to say that Canada, as a participating nation, gets access to a rock-bottom price for the fighter (meaning the same cost paid by the U.S. military) and Canadian firms have been part of the production of the planes from the very beginning. That's the deal. It's a pretty good one. But Canada wants a different deal. Specifically, it wants the same kind of deal it always insists on when buying military equipment from abroad. We want any foreign company we're purchasing equipment from to invest heavily in Canada, so that even a contract signed with a foreign supplier can be shown to have helped Canadian jobs, and the middle class, and those working hard to join it. Even this is only a second-best option, a procurement Plan B. Canadian politicians would much rather have stuff built in Canada by Canadians, no matter how much that ends up costing us in terms of cost overruns and delays. But when that's simply not possible, we'll settle for industrial offsets from foreign companies. You'll note that in the above paragraph on military procurement, there was very little emphasis on actually successfully procuring equipment for the Armed Forces. Ottawa is much too sophisticated for that kind of concern. The real action is in the jobs, the industrial benefits, the gigantic novelty cheques, the ribbon cuttings, the question period talking points and the partisan mailers crowing about all the money flowing to Canadian firms. That's what military procurement is really for, at least in the eyes of Canadian officials. That's why our national shipbuilding strategy was to first build out a shipbuilding industry and then build some ships, almost as an afterthought, when we could have bought them faster and almost certainly cheaper from an ally. The Americans, it seems, have had enough, and are threatening to pull the F-35 from consideration in Canada's upcoming program to select our next fighter. To their mind, Canada has already been offered an objectively good deal: access to one of the world's most advanced fighter jets at the same cost the U.S. military pays, and billions in industrial benefits. It's true that the F-35 program has been troubled, but most of those problems are now behind it. These jets are entering service in large numbers in the U.S. military and in allied forces, as well. The F-35 isn't perfect but it's available, now, and Canada has already paid the cost of entry to the club. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans and all the other allied nations who are part of the process. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans Now a cynic will say that it's just good business. There's nothing wrong with Canada trying to get the best deal for itself. In general, I have an open mind to this kind of argument. But Canada isn't a business. It's a country that has signed alliances and agreements with our democratic peers, theoretically in good faith. We have our own interests, to be sure, but we also have obligations. Canada's membership in the F-35 consortium does not obligate us to buy F-35s. We'd retain the industrial benefits even if we select another fighter. But certainly it obligates us to at least honour the agreement we've already made? The Liberals have never been keen on the F-35. Before the past election, they actually pledged to never purchase them, before realizing that that was an impossible pledge to keep if we actually intended to hold a fair and open competition to select the next plane. The prime minister himself once dismissively described the F-35 as a plane that didn't work, even as the United States was putting its first squadron into active service. Part of me wonders if the Liberals are deliberately structuring our selection process to make it impossible for the U.S. to sell us F-35s. That would certainly solve that particular problem for the Liberals. Alas, the more realistic answer is probably, as ever, the simplest one. The Canadian government is probably baffled that the Americans would object to us behaving as we always do. Military procurement in Canada isn't about procurement, or the military, or honouring our commitments to our friends. It's about political booty that can be flung around the country come election time. That's just the way we do things here. Why would that ever change? https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-is-it-any-wonder-the-u-s-is-steamed-at-us-over-our-fighter-jet-fiasco

  • Fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel delivered to The Royal Canadian Navy

    31 août 2023 | Local, Naval

    Fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel delivered to The Royal Canadian Navy

    Today, the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel (AOPV), His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) William Hall, was delivered to the fleet.

  • Canada's 'tenuous hold' in Arctic could be challenged by Russia, China, says top soldier | CBC News

    18 octobre 2022 | Local, Autre défense

    Canada's 'tenuous hold' in Arctic could be challenged by Russia, China, says top soldier | CBC News

    Canada’s hold on the outer reaches of its Arctic territory is “tenuous” and will face significant challenges from both Russia and China in the future, the country’s top military commander warned a parliamentary committee on Tuesday.

Toutes les nouvelles