Skip to main content

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is shown in this undated handout photo. If the Harper government proceeds with its controversial F-35 program, the stealth fighters might not drop as many bombs or fire as many missiles as previously estimated, according to a Parliamentary Library research publication tabled this week.

THE CANADIAN PRESS

If the Harper government proceeds with its controversial F-35 program, the stealth fighters might not drop as many bombs or fire as many missiles as previously estimated.

National Defence has drastically revised how much it would spend on weapons for the multi-role fighter, according to a Parliamentary Library research publication tabled this week.

The analysis attempts to chart the conflicting cost estimates that have dogged the procurement since Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced in 2010 the Lockheed Martin-built jet would replace the CF-18s.

Story continues below advertisement

Last spring, auditor general Michael Ferguson criticized National Defence for low-balling the cost of the program, and not including estimates for operating the high-tech jet well into the future.

The new research publication lays out the Defence Department's response to Ferguson against previous statements, and lists a series of revisions, including significant cuts to the amount of money set aside for weapons, infrastructure and project management.

The amount National Defence has set aside for weapons has been cut to just $52-million for the estimated 30-year operational life of the jets, compared with estimates in two previous reports of $270-million and $300-million.

Modern bombs and missiles are expensive. Laser-guided munitions – known as JDAMS – cost an average of $24,000 each, while Hellfire air-to-ground missiles cost $58,000 apiece.

Sparrow air-to-air missiles are the most expensive at $125,000 a pop.

Paul Maillet, a retired air force colonel and defence planner, said the revision of the figures is "striking."

In its report last December, the Public Works secretariat that took over management of the F-35 file from National Defence noted some of the weapons stock belonging to the CF-18s could be retained for the stealth fighter.

Story continues below advertisement

The document notes that "over the life cycle of the replacement fleet, the acquisition of newer weapons will be considered and funded as separate projects."

Maillet said some hard questions need to be asked about the revision, regardless of the fact that the government has not decided whether to proceed with the purchase. The fighter secretariat is conducting a market analysis of what aircraft other than the F-35 are available to replace the CF-18s.

Maillet, who worked on the acquisition of the current fighter fleet, said funding the weapons separately is moving an important long-term cost off the books, something that violates the spirit of all-in accounting.

The move could also mean the air force is considering modifying the F-35's role, making it more of a surveillance platform than a warfighter, Maillet added.

Using the accounting firm KPMG, the fighter secretariat ordered its own independent analysis of National Defence's often-conflicting stealth fighter estimates last year.

It put out a tender Thursday for the next round of number-crunching for this year's report.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter