F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[The Bread Guy]

.... This latest from MERX (screen capture also available here if link doesn't work):

.... Canada is seeking to establish a contract for Financial and Accounting Services .... from date of award to January 31, 2013. Treasury Board Secretariat requires the services of a team of resources composed of the Senior Auditor, Project Leader/Manager or Partner/Managing Director categories to Review of the Department of National Defence (DND) acquisition and sustainment project assumptions with respect to the estimated costs for next generation fighter jet ....

While the original deadline for a report to Parliament in the earlier MERX posting was October 2012, this latest bit of work (see latest Statement of Work here) seems to have a report going to Parliament closer to the end of November 2012.  Hmmm....

Some questions & clarification from the latest amendment to the bid documents (Google Docs)

.... Q8. The old timelines and deadlines were not very flexible – are the new timelines and deadlines flexible?

A8. Due to the commitments made for reporting to Parliament, the timelines are not flexible.

Q9. Can you elaborate on the interplay between the work of the Contractor, and that of
DND, TB and PWGSC etc…? Will the Contractor look at and assess the successive
iterations of the reports as it passes for review to the other government stakeholders?

A9. There will be significant interplay between the work of the Contractor and the various government stakeholders. The goal of the project is to give advice to Ministers and decision makers. The Contractor’s work will form part of the reports and recommendations submitted Ministers and Parliament. Between the Contractor’s draft and final report, DND and other Government Stakeholders will examine the Contractor’s findings and this may result in changes to the lifecycle costing model that was historically used for submissions related to the F-35.

Q10. It does not appear that international best practices are well-aligned with Treasury
Board policies – to which of these standards should the Contractor’s work adhere?

A10. The contractor is only required to assess compliance to policies related to lifecycle costing, not broader procurement policies. DND is required to comply with Treasury Board policies and therefore any recommendations must adhere to these polices. However, the TB policies are principles based and thus not very restrictive when related to lifecycle costing. To our knowledge, there is not a single international best practice standard in the area of military costing. The contractor is asked to review lifecycle costing processes from other advanced nations that may be applicable to the costing for the next generation fighter and provide a framework that incorporates these best practices and aligns to the Treasury Board policies ....

 

[dapaterson]

I think you're overstating the level of risk. The B and C models both use the P&D refueling method, and they are over a quarter of all F-35s to be produced. Put it another way, the number of F-35s using P&D is should be more than all of the F/A-18Es ever produced. The modification requires them to utilize an assembly from the B&C model instead of the A model. So its an modification with relatively low risk attached, particularly since several other states will utilize same modification.

Any change to the airframe makes it a different aircraft, requiring additional OT&E to certify it.  That represents an additional cost that someone will have to pay - for initial work, and then for any lifecycle upgrades.  You're essentially making two different A models - and getting away from the cost savings that a single common platform is supposed to provide.

 

[Kirkhill]

But wouldn't the AAR problem (probe and drogue F35As) apply to the majority of international partners also buying F35As?

To my understanding it looks like, even with potential reductions in buys, that the international partners are going to be buying something like 500, maybe 584, F35As.

(Italy 69, Netherlands 68, Canada 65, Norway 52, Turkey 116, Israel 100, Japan 42)

Don't most of them currently employ the probe and drogue system?  Amongst other advantages it seems to allow smaller forces, like the Israelis, to buddy pack.

 

[Shrek1985]

But wouldn't the AAR problem (probe and drogue F35As) apply to the majority of international partners also buying F35As?

To my understanding it looks like, even with potential reductions in buys, that the international partners are going to be buying something like 500, maybe 584, F35As.

(Italy 69, Netherlands 68, Canada 65, Norway 52, Turkey 116, Israel 100, Japan 42)

Don't most of them currently employ the probe and drogue system?  Amongst other advantages it seems to allow smaller forces, like the Israelis, to buddy pack.

Hmmmmm and if you put all those together they still don't come close to having the same area to cover as the RCAF has.

 

[GR66]

Hmmmmm and if you put all those together they still don't come close to having the same area to cover as the RCAF has.

I'd like to think that a more serious approach than just calculating the land mass of the nation is taken in determining the types and quantities of aircraft required for the RCAF.  The potential threats to each nation are very different and just suggesting that we're larger so we need more F-35's than them makes no logical sense.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd like to think that a more serious approach than just calculating the land mass of the nation is taken in determining the types and quantities of aircraft required for the RCAF.  The potential threats to each nation are very different and just suggesting that we're larger so we need more F-35's than them makes no logical sense.

For the folks around the sunny shores of the Med, the calculation may have more to do with the nature of the kids in the neighbourhood than the home territory to be covered.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Any change to the airframe makes it a different aircraft, requiring additional OT&E to certify it.  That represents an additional cost that someone will have to pay - for initial work, and then for any lifecycle upgrades.  You're essentially making two different A models - and getting away from the cost savings that a single common platform is supposed to provide.

Which the RCAF budgeted for within their estimate, approximately $2~3 million per aircraft. However reading your response, I continue to believe that you're grossly overestimating the level of work. The fundamental parts of the system are already been tested and in operation on the C and more importantly the F-35B model (Because it shares more commonality in this case with the F-35A.) I believe it was one of the earliest systems tested and qualified (the F-35B initially qualified it in 2009). So the system itself operates just fine. Adding the system to an F-35A does not require an extensive re-work of the fighter, rather changing the forward right hand cockpit assembly to the B model. However all three versions are designed to have an extremely high level of commonality in order to produce the very same cost reductions you're calling for.

Will that require testing to ensure that? Sure. I can't see how this is some sort of massive cost impediment that requires you to say that we're decisively breaking from a common single platform, when its a minor modification shared by the other two variants in the system.

Finally, the fashion that F-35's logistics and parts system operates means that such changes will have little to no effect on our costs. The RCAF parts pool will in part be a global one, shared among the partner nations. So if we need a specialized P&D part, it can be ordered from US Navy or Marine Stocks if necessary... where there are over 600+ P&D F-35s fighters in operation... not to mention the hundreds of F-35As with the very same modification. 

 

[Shrek1985]

I'd like to think that a more serious approach than just calculating the land mass of the nation is taken in determining the types and quantities of aircraft required for the RCAF.  The potential threats to each nation are very different and just suggesting that we're larger so we need more F-35's than them makes no logical sense.

Actually I don't think such concepts were much considered at all.

They wanted a super-modern american-style stealth fighter. The F-35 was on the table. Done. 65 is plenty for supporting the kind of ops we are familiar with for the forseeable future.

It's not even worth considering for anything like soverienty preservation, home defence, or anything really wild like recce, ect.

Oh, and have they tested it in the arctic yet? The Norwegians buying it makes me think they have, but you never know.

 

[aesop081]

But wouldn't the AAR problem (probe and drogue F35As) apply to the majority of international partners also buying F35As?

It does not. The RNALF uses the flying boom system ( on a KDC-10 tanker) and the Italians use the flying boom (on a KC-767 aircraft that also has P&D for their Typhoons). The turkish AF uses the flying boom (on KC-135 aircraft). Israel uses the flying boom system ( on KC-707 aircraft) as well as Japan (KC-767). The RNoAF has the F-16 as it's fighter aircraft (boom system) but does not have an integral boom-equiped tanker.

Don't most of them currently employ the probe and drogue system?

Check again.

RNLAF KDC-10

Israeli A&SF KC-707

Turkish AF KC-135

Italian AF KC-767

Japanese ASDF KC-767

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Cdn Aviator.

It's always worth asking.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Potential vendor: Hey, this “assessing the assumptions” contract’s complicated – can we have a couple of more weeks (to 5 Sept) to prepare bids? 

Government:  No, but we’ll give you a few extra working days (old deadline:  21 Aug; new deadline:  27 Aug 12)

Details of the latest Q&A in the latest bid document amendment here.

 

[Shrek1985]

did we just go with Probe and Drouge out of familiarity? Our CF-18s being US Navy types and the US Navy being probe and drouge? I know it has ome outside benefits re; underwing pod refueling.

 

[Haletown]

Anyone know if the CF 35's will have both refueling systems in place?

Canada won't likely get refueling aircraft equipped with booms, but we will operate with air forces that do.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Anyone know if the CF 35's will have both refueling systems in place?

Canada won't likely get refueling aircraft equipped with booms, but we will operate with air forces that do.

Canada formally/informally asked, and I believe that LM is studying the issue.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the "Ho-hum" category we find this report in the Globe and Mail:

(Extracts reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act)

Critics blast proposed F-35 procurement plan

Ottawa, Ont. — The Canadian Press

Published Tuesday, Aug. 21 2012

One of the most vocal critics of the F-35 stealth-fighter program had some simple advice for the Harper government: fly before you buy.

Winslow Wheeler, a former defence auditor in Washington, says anyone would be a “fool” to commit to the program before the multi-role jet fighter exits its testing and development phase in 2019.

Mr. Wheeler was among four witnesses to appear on Parliament Hill on Tuesday before a panel of New Democrat MPs, who interrupted their summer recess in an attempt to put last spring’s incendiary controversy back on the public radar ...
...
New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris says the party organized the hearing, during Parliament’s summer recess, in order to get the testimony of experts on the record.

“We will be referring to the testimony that was given here today. We will using that to reinforce the arguments that this government is not doing the right thing,” said Harris.

NDP staffers said both Lockheed Martin, the F-35 manufacturer, and Boeing aircraft were invited to testify, but declined.

Critics and assorted amateurs analysts called b the Dippers ... quelle surprise!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Critics blast proposed F-35 procurement plan

Ottawa, Ont. — The Canadian Press

Published Tuesday, Aug. 21 2012

One of the most vocal critics of the F-35 stealth-fighter program had some simple advice for the Harper government: fly before you buy.

Winslow Wheeler, a former defence auditor in Washington, says anyone would be a “fool” to commit to the program before the multi-role jet fighter exits its testing and development phase in 2019.

Mr. Wheeler was among four witnesses to appear on Parliament Hill on Tuesday before a panel of New Democrat MPs, who interrupted their summer recess in an attempt to put last spring’s incendiary controversy back on the public radar ...
...
New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris says the party organized the hearing, during Parliament’s summer recess, in order to get the testimony of experts on the record.

“We will be referring to the testimony that was given here today. We will using that to reinforce the arguments that this government is not doing the right thing,” said Harris.

NDP staffers said both Lockheed Martin, the F-35 manufacturer, and Boeing aircraft were invited to testify, but declined.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, the U.S. is a fool!
The U.K. is a fool!
Australia is a fool !
Italy is a fool!
the Netherlands is a fool!
Turkey is, well I guess a turkey? Not: A fool!
Denmark is a fool!
and Norway is a fool!

Not bad company to be fools with if you ask me.

 

[Haletown]

If anyone is an expert on being a fool, it would be Mr. Winslow.

 

[The Bread Guy]

So, the U.S. is a fool!
The U.K. is a fool!
Australia is a fool !
Italy is a fool!
the Netherlands is a fool!
Turkey is, well I guess a turkey? Not: A fool!
Denmark is a fool!
and Norway is a fool!

Not bad company to be fools with if you ask me.

To play the devil's advocate, that logic may not always hold ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks to he opposition we have a look "behind the scenes" according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deep-disagreement-between-a-g-defence-department-on-f-35s-letters/article4518787/

Deep disagreement between A-G, Defence Department on F-35s: letters

MURRAY BREWSTER
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Tuesday, Sep. 04 2012

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have accepted the Auditor-General’s scathing criticism of the troubled F-35 program, but newly released documents show National Defence and Public Works had deep disagreements with Michael Ferguson’s findings.

The final draft of the bombshell report, which accused the departments of hiding the true cost of the multibillion-dollar project and not doing their homework, was the subject of a flurry of letters and protests behind-the-scenes last winter.

As is standard practice, the Auditor-General’s office shared its report ahead of time with National Defence for review before it was made public — and the department’s top bureaucrat fired back.

“While we are generally satisfied with the accuracy of the facts as presented in your report, we disagree with your conclusion that National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the replacement for the CF-18s,” deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg wrote on Feb. 7, 2012, less than two months before the report was released.

The exchange of letters was obtained by the Opposition New Democrats under the Access to Information Act.

As senior government and military officials pored over every line of the report, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force took issue with the absence-of-due-diligence claim, labelling the auditor’s finding as a “misleading statement.”

A follow-up letter on Feb. 24, 2012, signed by both Mr. Fonberg and public works deputy minister François Guimont, asked the auditor to “present a more balanced story” and wanted Mr. Ferguson to point to “specific laws, policies, and/or regulations” that had been violated.

When it was tabled in Parliament last April, the Auditor-General’s report caused a political firestorm that burned throughout the spring.

The Conservatives found themselves under attack in the House of Commons and in the headlines almost daily. The report seemed to erode the Harper government’s carefully crafted image as prudent fiscal managers.

“The Auditor-General’s report was very clear about responsibilities,” Mr. Harper told the Commons on April 4. “The government has accepted the auditor general’s recommendations and, clearly, we will act on them to ensure better oversight.”

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay referred questions to Public Works, where a spokeswoman for the minister, Rona Ambrose, repeated the government’s acceptance of the report and pointed to a website statement made the day the report was released.

The government took the project away from the Defence Department and gave it to an independent secretariat under the direction of Public Works. It promised more oversight, fresh cost estimates and that it would consider “all options” to replace the CF-18s.

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris said the government “clearly didn’t say: mea culpa” and the documents contradict the public assurances.

“DND accepts nothing that the auditor said,” Harris said Tuesday.

“They accept the facts, but not the judgment of the Auditor-General. It’s mind-boggling that you could have this level of contradiction at this level of government.”

Mr. Fonberg wrote that his “disagreement goes beyond the concern that we have been held to traditional acquisition and project management standards.”

He told the Auditor-General’s staff that they failed to appreciate the “uniqueness of the project” and the potential industrial benefits.

One of Mr. Ferguson’s biggest complaints was the proposed multibillion-dollar purchase lacked enough supporting paperwork and research, something Mr. Fonberg conceded, but dismissed as potentially irrelevant to the Harper government’s ultimate approval.

“Further, certain traditional steps and documentation may not have been available at the time of the audit, but there is no reason to believe that the lack of this evidence would have resulted in any material change to the government’s decision as due diligence was exercised,” said the letter.

“They’re contradicting not only themselves, but the defence minister, the prime minister,” said Mr. Harris. “They seem to be all over the place.”

One of the biggest criticisms of the program was the fact that the air force did not finalize its written statement of requirements for a replacement aircraft until just before the Harper government announced its intention to buy the F-35 in July, 2010.

As Murray Brewster says, it is standard practice for the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the departments being audited to exchange views - drafts of the AG's report, comments, revised draft, further comments  and so on. Usually, in my experience (which is 20+ years old), there is a some give and take until, eventually, the department "agrees" with the AG and promises to mend its ways.

Mr. Fonberg has defended DND and the "established" processes vigorously, even though he ought to know that it is deeply flawed. Just as an example, the written statement of requirement is never finalized, not even after the contract is awarded, sometimes it is still open while ships, aircraft and weapon systems are being delivered. This is normal in all contracts, civil and government, in my experience, but Mr. Ferguson was correct to raise the issue - the problem is that the highly detailed "statement of requirement" that is used for contracts should never go to cabinet; the SOR that cabinet sees and approves ought to be a short, clear performance/cost/schedule document that makes sense to "ordinary Canadians," which is what most ministers are.

Mr. Ferguson, in my opinion made a "rookie mistake," at the behest of his own minions - he took on DND and PWGSC (a good idea) but he attacked the symptom (the F-35) not the disease (the whole defence procurement process). The result, I suspect, will be a screwed up contract within a screwy procurement process.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not a huge Fanboy of a only f-35 fighter equipped airforce, but if the plane meets expectations, the critics will be sad to hear there is nothing but good news to report. No doubt by then they will have leapt onto the sub replacement contract.