$16 billion for fighter jets despite $54 billion deficit

Once again Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government is spending wrecklessly and hiding the costs and information from the public. Rather than putting the construction of the sixty-five F-35 fighter jets out to tender, the Harper Government, proponents of the free-market, liberal capitalist ideal, abstained from competition and threw our tax payer money together with several other nations to nations to purchase these jets together.

From the Toronto Star:

Ottawa — Defence Minister Peter MacKay gave a blunt assurance Friday that Canada’s new $9 billion fleet of F-35 jet fighters is so advanced that its single engine will never fail and leave a pilot in desperate trouble over the country’s remote coastlines or Arctic region.

“It won’t,” MacKay said, when asked if he had any concerns about the single engine failing — a factor that figured prominently years ago in deciding to go with the double-engine CF-18 Hornets, which will remain in action for another 10 years.

MacKay announced Friday Canada is buying 65 F-35s at cost of $9 billion when factoring in other associated costs. But MacKay and other cabinet ministers refused to say what the projected cost of maintenance is over 20 years, which critics say could drive the cost up to at least $16 billion, making it the largest contract in Canadian history.

Canada has invested $160 million so far in the development of the F-35, and Canadian companies have received $350 million in contracts. Delivery of the first fighters is scheduled for 2016.

Despite the fanfare, the contract is dogged with controversy, especially the fact the contract was not put out to tender by the Canadian government, which simply fell into line with the U.S. on the decision to go with the Lockheed Martin fighters.

“I am appalled, angry, frustrated, all of those things,” said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works.

Williams said it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public by trying to suggest the deal was arrived at by a process of elimination.

“The fact there was a U.S. competition for who should build the aircraft has nothing to do with which aircraft 15 or 20 years later would best meet the needs of our Canadian military. They are totally different animals and to link the two is absurd,” he told the Star.

The ballooning price tag for the jets since the program was launched has sparked concern in Washington, where the Pentagon is looking at buying more than 2,000 of the jets. A report to Congress this spring said the cost had more than doubled to $328 billion (U.S.), prompting a Pentagon demand to Lockheed that it find ways to cut costs.

Canada is part of a consortium of nations that are partners in the F-35 program. The other countries are Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and Australia. But Denmark has deferred its decision to purchase until 2012 and the Netherlands’ participation in the program has also been up in the air.

The question of one engine or two engines loomed large in the debate leading up to Canada’s 1980 decision to spend $5.2 billion to buy 138 twin-engine CF-18s, over the single-engine F-16.

But this time, Canada has gone the other way, forgoing several two-engine designs — the Boeing Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon — in favour of a single-engine fighter.

A Star review of Transport Canada records dating back to 1993 reveals that CF-18 pilots suffered engine failures on 10 flights and engine “problems” on other 11 flights.

But a senior government official said the advances in engine technology in the last 30 years gives him peace of mind that missions over the Arctic and coastlines can be flown safely in the single-engine F-35.

He said statistical studies show “no clear advantage” flying with either one engine or two.

“The F-35 engine is newer technology so it is extremely robust. It is built to take a significant pounding,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He conceded that the Arctic — where CF-18s occasionally operate from both Iqaluit and Inuvik— is a “dangerous environment. “This aircraft is as well-equipped as the F-18 to deal with that environment,” he said.

The decision was announced at a news conference full of pomp and ceremony in a hangar at the Ottawa airport. A mock-up of the F-35 — with a red maple leaf painted on the tail and “Canada” stenciled on the fuselage — was placed beside a missile-laden CF-18 flown in from CFB Bagotville in Quebec for the event.

MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the “increasingly complex demands” facing Canada’s air force.

“This is the best aircraft we can provide,” MacKay told a crowd of industry and military guests.

And officials boasted that it marks a huge technological leap over the CF-18 it replaces, even despite a recent $2.6 billion upgrade to the Hornet fleet.

“The F-35 Lightning II is a technological leap in terms of sensors, stealth technology, weapons systems, survivability,” MacKay said.

Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, called the jet stealthy and smart, able to fly nearly invisible to radar while providing the pilot with a wealth of tactical information about the environment and potential threats around him “at a glance.”

“This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability,” he said.

Air force personnel were positively beaming at the news of getting the high-tech toy in their inventory, with several posing for photos beside the mock-up.

MacKay was happy to sing the praises of the Lockheed Martin fighter jet, however he was far more reticent about making public either the unit costs or the estimated maintenance costs, saying they had not be factored in yet,

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the Conservatives did the whole thing under the cover of darkness and called for the Common to resume sitting.

“What Canadians want to know is do we need this plane. Do we need this number of planes. What is the purpose of these planes. We’re in a $54 billion deficit. Every choice has to be justified. You’ve got to justify it. That’s how it works in a democracy. Mr. Harper doesn’t just get to spend $16 billion of your money on his say-so,” he told reporters.

I'm sure this video gives Conservatives a hard-on: