Postmedia Goes Fact-Free on F-35 Fighter
Once one has been a blogger for even a little while, one learns to develop a pretty thick skin when it comes to blasé incompetence from our paid professional betters. You see, the difference is that blogs are peer-reviewed. Commenters and other bloggers jump on us when we make an egregious mistake, and call us names. That doesn’t happen in the professional media. Instead, they circle the wagons, print a barely noticeable correction notice, and carry on.
Our exhibit for today is an almost unbelievable litany of errors from Postmedia’s Matthew Fisher. Seriously unbelievable, as in, of Wente-ian proportions. Mr. Fisher is “Canada’s most experienced, well-traveled foreign correspondent.” Today he had the following to say about the F-35. We’ll run through all of Mr. Fisher’s claims, because I think it’s important to celebrate a journalist’s successes, not just denounce their failures.
1. The F-18 Super Hornet “is the only serious rival” to the F-35.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by “serious.” There are actually quite a number of modern jet fighters in the Western world (assuming we’re not going to buy a good Russian plane, which does seem unlikely). So far the government has not deigned to share with Canadians a clear statement of requirements, so we have no idea what its rivals might be, because we don’t know what the government requires our plane to do.
We have, however, repeatedly been told that stealth is the essential characteristic. Whether you agree with that criterion or not, if it’strue, then the F-18 is not a serious rival to the F-35, for the fairly obvious reason that it is not a stealth fighter.
2. If we bought the F-18 Super Hornet “electronic warfare variant,” it would cost us just as much as the F-35.
By “electronic warfare variant,” Fisher actually means the EA-18 Growler, which for all intents and purposes is the same airframe but adding lots and lots of jamming equipment. Note the different name, which is a useful clue that these are not swappable planes: they serve entirely different roles. To that end, the U.S. has built 96 Growlers, compared with 500 Super Hornets.
If the Canadian government proposes “buying the two-seat electronic warfare variant” in place of a jet fighter, it will do more than raise a few eyebrows in Washington. While we’re on the subject, though, the unit flyaway cost of the EA-18G is $68.2 million. The current price of an F-35A is evidently $107 million, though our government says it will fall to $87 million by the time we buy them. You can make all these numbers equal up in whatever way you find most appropriate. I suggest complete fabrication.
3. It’s inappropriate to worry about F-35 operating costs, because “few people” worry about such things when buying a car.
Leaving aside the fact that operating costs must be factored into major defence procurement estimates, in accordance with federal law, I think I speak for at least a couple of dozen Canadians when I say that some of us really do ask at least once about average mileage when we buy a car. Not all of us,but definitely some of us.
4. The F-35′s cost estimates are so high because it will be used for 42 years, whereas the “international standard” is only 20 years.
Fisher doesn’t appear to have opened a newspaper in over a week. That’s about long the professional media has been prattling on about its supposed “coup” in noticing that DND’s “42-year” life cycle estimate actually included only 30 years of operating cost estimates. Indeed, they were so proud about finding it that they all missed an even more extreme adjustment buried a little deeper in the report. Plus, the 20-year “life cycle” estimates have never, ever included 12 years of R&D downtime. The “42-year” estimate does.
Fisher also doesn’t seem to have read the latest DND report, which states that the common practice set by the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office is to “base… cost estimates on a 30-year aircraft life cycle.” Oops again.
5. It’s unfair to estimate the cost of the F-35 without pointing out that “the CBC… will cost taxpayers more by 2052 than whatever new fighter jets Canada eventually purchases.”
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Incidentally, the healthcare system costs more in one year than the fighter replacement program will ever cost us, too. But for what it’s worth, CBC’s annual federal funding is now being cut to around $1 billion. That times 40 years is still less than $45.8 billion, which is the current estimated total price tag for the F-35. So unless something changes, the CBC won’t actually cost taxpayers more than the F-35.
And, since Fisher brings it up, it is interesting to make these sorts of price comparisons. What’s a better deal: half a lifetime’s worth of quality independent media (plus, Hockey Night in Canada), or a few dozen stealth fighters?
6. The new report actually proves that “cost estimates prepared several years ago by National Defence were accurate.”
At the risk of sounding redundant: once again, Fisher doesn’t seem to have actually read the reports. DND actually included a helpful table comparing the “old” 2010 estimate and the “new” 2012 estimate. The new estimate includes $565 million in development costs (the initial estimate included zero development costs) and then, in order to keep the total acquisition tally under $9 billion, it also eliminates one-third of the planned flight simulators and 80% of the ammunition budget (oh, good), amongst other various other adjustments.
DND also notes that the unit flyaway cost is increasing from $75 million to $87.4 million US. That’s accurate enough, I suppose. For instance, this morning I spent somewhere between fifty cents and $15 million buying a cup of orange juice. See? Accuracy!
7. Other planes are just as expensive. The Super Hornet costs $88 million per aircraft, which is identical to KPMG’s estimate for a F-35.
KPMG’s estimate is for the unit flyaway cost. I don’t know what Fisher’s particular source is, but this year’s U.S. Navy budget documents say that the unit cost for the Super Hornet has declined to $66.9 million. That’s only, oh, a few dozen times what I’ll probably make in my entire life. Per aircraft. Obviously Fisher and me have different definitions of “identical.”
There’s the added bonus that the Super Hornet actually costs $67 million each, today, right now, on the invoice. That $88 million figure for the F-35 is an accountant’s guess of what it might cost, eventually, barring any more drastic cost inflation.
Moving right along, on the same theme:
8. The Eurofighter Typhoon costs $115 million each.
The British MOD says that the Typhoon’s cost is £64.8 million. At today’s rates, according to XE.com, that works out to $109 million. It’s much closer than the last estimates, which is good, because I’m rapidly running out of sarcastic comments to make. The exact figure fluctuates with the currency, but yes, it does appear that the Eurofighter costs more than the F-35. Assuming we actually buy the F-35, and assuming that the cost figure for the Eurofighter is a unit flyaway price, which isn’t made clear.
9. New Super Hornets cost $88 million, “identical” to the F-35.
Note that in the space of just a couple of paragraphs, Fisher’s price estimate for the Super Hornet has gone up markedly: it used to be that the Growler electronic warfare version was as expensive as the F-35, but now we’re only going to get the bog-standard Super Hornet for the same cost. More importantly, as I already noted, the American Department of Defense stated in this year’s budget documents that the Super Hornet’s unit cost would be $66.9 million. Not $88 million.
That $87 million F-35 cost figure, by the way, is in American dollars. DND’s actual estimate, for the moment, is $92 million Cdn.
10. Australia’s new Super Hornets “will cost more than $100 million each.”
This statement literally comes in the next sentence after Fisher just finished telling us that the Super Hornets cost $88 million. I’m sure there’s a rational explanation. In theory there shouldn’t be a variance, because the Super Hornet is already in production, unless we’re dealing with different versions, different equipment packages, or extra equipment and set-up costs being built into the Australian figure.
11. The Dassault Rafale costs $80-$120 million.
This estimate is confirmed at Wikipedia, but the higher number presumably includes extra features. In India’s recent fighter competition, the Rafale’s cost estimate was about $85 million, slightly less than the F-35. If, again, the F-35′s cost actually comes down on schedule. Right now that’s substantially cheaper than the F-35.
12. The Gripen E jet costs $100 million each.
Once again, it’s not stated whether this is a unit flyaway cost (and thus a fair comparison with the F-35 figure) or includes extra bells and whistles. I can’t find the estimated cost of a new Gripen online. Old versions were much cheaper but, of course, they’re old versions. This announcement actually says that the Swiss Gripens will cost something like $150 million each.
13. The F-35 purchase has not been controversial in other countries like it is here.
I’m not going to even touch this one.
14. The F-35 fighter jet, like war crimes committed by Canadian soldiers, is not important to Canadians.
Yeah, I’m not going to touch that one either.
Tweet
MoS
Fisher is the greatest blowhard in the history of CanWest/PostMedia. He styles himself a true military visionary. Yet anyone interested in the quality of Fisher’s military acumen need only read the drivel he wrote from Afghanistan over the course of several years. We had them on the run. The Talibs were finished, crushed under Canadian combat boots. The battle of Panjwai was the insurgents’ Waterloo. The man’s knowledge is inversely proportional to his ego. He’s a pudgy puff piece in long pants.
Fisher has been pushing hard for the F-35 from the outset and the absence of balance in his reportage has been grating. It’s as though he’s been angling for a PR slot with Lockheed.
His stock in trade is knocking down straw men as fast as he can set them up. He is playing the cost issue at the moment as though this was determinative of the A/C’s overall suitability.
Fisher continues the fabrication that the F-35 is a “fighter” when it’s nothing of the kind. It is a light attack bomber with a minimal, onboard defensive capability.
It is not an air-superiority fighter like the competition. It lacks thrust and carries a big drag penalty in exchange for supposed stealth. It has high wingloading that degrades its turn rate. In the air it is easy meat for pretty much any variant of the SU-30 family.
It is not a ground support, strike fighter. It has single engine vulnerability. It’s much too expensive to warrant risking it to ground fire. Its heat signature is ideal for shoulder fired IR missiles. It’s limited fuel capacity precludes any useful loiter capability. Its internal bay capacity limits it to just a very small number of one or two types of ordinance.
It is not a high-speed, long-range interceptor. Its fuel load is much too small for patrolling or interception. It lacks range. While it has a moderately limited top speed, it is incapable of super-cruise meaning it can only go fast on fuel-guzzling afterburner, an enormous drawback for an aircraft with a limited fuel load.
So if it cannot qualify as an air superiority fighter or as a ground attack, strike fighter or as a fighter-interceptor, the F-35 is in no way a fighter at all. Lockheed designed the F-22 to serve as the fighter escort for the F-35 light attack bomber.
When comparing the costs of the F-35 to competitors like the Typhoon, Rafale or SuperHornet, regard must be had to which roles each can and cannot perform. How can cost ever be relevant without consideration of utility and value?
Sixth Estate
How can cost ever be relevant without consideration of utility and value?
As I pointed out with respect to the Super Hornet comparison, which he claims is the only legitimate one:
“So far the government has not deigned to share with Canadians a clear statement of requirements, so we have no idea what its rivals might be, because we don’t know what the government requires our plane to do.”
MoS
http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.ca/2012/04/most-idiotic-journalist-in-canada.html
Sixth Estate
Nice.
R
A country recently bought about 50 block 20 f16 for 20 m each.. at least there are many out there, about
4500 units ,and are still in production.
Sixth Estate
There’s a long list of fighters currently in production.
Unfortunately, as MoS has pointed out, and I agree, it’s kind of unhelpful to start talking about cost until you first decide what you need. “A jet-powered plane with guns” obviously isn’t a specific enough description to base a defence procurement policy on.
R
Dogfight competition might help
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-12081355506689/
rab
Back to a question that seems to have been forgotten.
Why do we need these aircraft?
They are called “Fighters”, which immediately brings to mind an image of Dogfights with enemy aircraft. But aside from the stunt scenes in “Top Gun”, when was the last time dogfights took place…above Canada.
A better name might be “Attackers”, or “Bombers”, but that sounds agressive, not defensive. And it’s called the “Department of National Defence”, not the “Department of National War”, or “Department of Bombing”.
If we get attacked it’s more likely to be missiles, in which case super-cool fast planes will do squat. If it is airplanes attacking, for the cost of the F-35 program couldn’t we buy a shitload of surface to air missiles? What enemy pilot would dare to fly towards Canada knowing our border was bristling with SAMs?
These planes are to be used for two things. One, support US foreign invasions/occupations. Second, more likely, support US military industry and ensure cushy board positions at US aerospace firms for senior DND and Conservative MPs after retirement.
steve
It seems the Harper goverment is in full disinformation mode. Sow confusion and price ranges like dandylions in the springtime. Water carriers like useful idiots can be found in every corner of the fifth estate. The main points as you show.
Everything costs
Every timeline is weird
No one can figure out the true cost
The process will be thourogh
trust us we are fiscal managers
http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2011/05/military-industrial-complex-massive.html
anonymous
“”To our knowledge, Canadian officials have not received the full complement of Super Hornet performance data from the U.S. navy, including those about the new Super Hornet’s stealth characteristics,” Boeing vice-president Kory Mathews told the committee. Boeing makes the Super Hornet.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html
kootcoot
“Fisher is the greatest blowhard in the history of CanWest/PostMedia”
This is indeed a sweeping statement, considering that CanWest /PostMedia has regularly published the likes of Conrad of Crossdressing Black and the stableshovelers from the Fraser Institute.
It used to be that writers who wanted to make up stuff wrote novels. Nowadays they just go to work for PostMedia, SunMedia, the PR arm of the HarperCons or BC Liberals or Rupert Murdoch and/or Roger Ailes!
Holly Stick
I do have to say that Postmedia also has some excellent reporters like Mike De Souza and Margaret Munro, so I can’t give up on it completely.
MoS
@ RAB. Your question of why Canada needs fighters is quite common. Many people have trouble seeing any need for a warplane. They often ask who we’re going to fight? The answer is we don’t know, they usually don’t tell us years in advance.
Look at it this way. Both the Swedes and the Swiss covet their neutrality but they’re astute to understand the distinction between neutrality and passivism. Sweden even designs and builds its own fighters, SAAB, usually with Volvo jet engines. The Swiss operate the F-18. Why? Because they realize that the Romans were right. If you want peace, you must be prepared for war. If you disarm and stand down, your peace is vulnerable to others who may perceive weakness and opportunity.
Yes, the F-35 is a light attack bomber and we have no business turning our Air Force into a bomber group for America’s aerial Foreign Legion. Most of the F-35′s recognized competition, however, are real fighters capable of taking on typical fighter roles including air-superiority (dogfighting), ground support (strike fighter) and air defence patrolling and interception. In my day we operated more than one type of fighter to cover these bases. Today it’s far more common to go for a multi-role fighter like the F-18, or Rafale.
Sixth Estate
I don’t know if I’d use the Romans as the best example of a peaceful people arming for self-defence.
But I assume you’re talking about the earlier republican period.
More to the point, what we have to get past is this idea that a fighter is a fighter is a fighter and we’ll pick the cheapest or the best of the new models. What we actually need is an agreed-upon statement of what we want to be able to do, and not do, militarily over the next generation. We don’t appear to have any such statement. The government’s plan appears to be “buy lots of fancy shit.”
rab
OK. We don’t know who will attack us but somebody will. Or could. Got that.
Again, why not use missiles. They’re cheaper right? And you can fire lots and lots of them, enough so any pilots flying in will understand that it may be a suicide mission. For oil. Or water? Maybe gold? Whatever.
I really like the idea of an “agreed-upon statement” of what we intend to do. Ideally via referendum but at a minimum via combination of Commons debate supplemented by impartial (not just DND wonks) analysis with public monitors.
And for the record, Sweden doesn’t design and build it’s own fighters. SAAB does, and I assume the company spends a lot of time and money convincing politicians and the public they really need those “fighters”. Or “multi-role fighters”, “light attack bombers”, “death from the sky”, or whatever.
synonymous
“What we actually need is an agreed-upon statement of what we want to be able to do, and not do, militarily over the next generation”
The basic requirements for a Canadian fighter could be written down on a napkin. But the Conservative government refuses to discuss what those requirements might be.
This is not surprising given the fact that the Conservatives refused to reveal the costs of the F-35 program to the Canadian Parliament, and thereby were held in contempt of Parliament.
jrkrideau
Obviously the CAA wastes its time caa.ca/docs/eng/CAA_Driving_Costs_English.pdf
Sixth Estate
Yes, well, you’d expect that, wouldn’t you? Sounds like some sort of green radical group that’s just trying to discredit the car industry.