The Forum poll survey of 1,600 voting-age Canadians also found that even though the government argued that an independent review released in December confirmed its own estimates of F-35 costs were accurate, two-thirds of Canadians remain convinced that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary-Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet misled Canadians with estimates they released prior to the federal election in 2011.
The survey, conducted last week after MPs and Canadians had a month to digest a mountain of reports and documents the government tabled in the House of Commons before a two-month Parliamentary recess, found that 48 per cent of respondents believe the government will go ahead with the F-35 project regardless of a review of other new-generation fighters now in production.
Fully 63 per cent, down only marginally from 66 per cent after the F-35 controversy erupted last April with the release of a scathing report from Auditor General Michael Ferguson, said they believe the government misled Parliament and the public in 2011 when National Defence issued a report costing a fleet of F-35 fighters at $14-billion over 20 years, keeping secret a further $10-billion in operating costs that Mr. Ferguson said should have been released.
The Forum Research poll conducted last Wednesday, Jan. 16, and Thursday, Jan. 17, was an automated voice interactive telephone survey of 1,626 voting-age Canadians with a margin of error of two percentage points 19 times out of 20.
Only 24 per cent of the respondents said they do not believe the government intends to buy the F-35 regardless of its market analysis of four other European and U.S. fighter aircraft, while 28 per cent replied that they did not know.
Despite the skepticism about the government’s intent, 67 per cent of Canadians who were aware of the F-35 purchase gave approval to the government’s plan to look at other aircraft.
Although the government announced the market analysis after the release of an independent review of F-35 cost estimates by the accounting firm KPMG, it has not issued a request for proposals for a competition to select a new fighter to replace Canada’s aging fleet of Boeing CF-18 Hornets.
As well, Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet have not rescinded or amended their June, 2010, Cabinet decision to acquire a fleet of 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets, which, although several dozen operational aircraft have been produced, are still in testing and development stages with costs continuing to rise.
“There is a disconnect here in that Canadians are happy that the government is looking at other, potentially less expensive jets, but most still think the F-35 will be selected,” said Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff.
“Belief the fix is in for the F-35 is highest among the young, the least wealthy, Quebec, and the Prairies, as well as among Liberal, and NDP supporters,” said a statement about the results from Forum Research.
The latest acquisition, sustainment and operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35 stealth fighters were tabled in the House of Commons on Dec. 12, in the form an annual update on estimated costs from the Department of National Defence, which KPMG reviewed after receiving the update on Nov. 20. KPMG conducted the review within a week, before submitting its final report to the Public Works Department on Nov. 27.
The total $45.8-billion in estimated costs includes $1-billion for replacement of up to 11 aircraft during the lifetime of the fleet, which National Defence treated as a separate cost despite KPMG’s recommendation it be included in the total.
The government has frozen the F-35 acquisition budget at $9 billion, including a current estimated average of $87.4 million per aircraft to buy the fleet in lots spread from 2017 to 2023, with the cost theoretically going down as Lockheed Martin begins mass production of 3,100 F-35 variants to at least nine countries, with the U.S. buying more than 2,000.
But KPMG also reported at least $2 billion more in costs it suggested National Defence should have included in its estimates to Parliament.
KPMG noted National Defence was treating the eventual procurement of new weaponry as a separate project for later inclusion and the weaponry would add $1 billion to the cost, based on the estimates of the Australian government, which is also acquiring F-35 fighters.
As well, KPMG said an acquisition contingency of $602 million, should the initial cost be higher than currently expected on such a high-risk project, did not even reach the department’s own estimate of the need for a $1.5-billion acquisition contingency.
“DND has advised that their risk mitigation strategy for acquisition costs, to remain within a $9 billion ceiling, is to reduce the number of aircraft acquired,” the KPMG report said.
“As a result, based on their own calculations of potential contingency required, this could reduce the initial fleet to as low as 55 aircraft, which is below DND’s current stated requirements,” the accounting firm said.
KPMG also pointed out that the National Defence long-term forecast for sustainment and operating costs for the F-35 was based on a plan to sharply curtail flying hours for the fleet – down to a total of 11,700 flying hours per year from the 15,800 flying hours Canada’s current fleet of 77 CF-18s log on continental defence and sovereignty missions with the U.S. Air Force and for Canadian sovereignty and surveillance duties.
KPMG said if the F-35 fleet were to put in the same flying time as the F-18 fleet, sustainment and operating costs over the fleet’s lifecycle would rise by a total of at least $3.3 billion.
The operating cost estimate was based on operating costs for the CF-18 fleet, even though operating and maintenance costs for the sophisticated F-35 are expected to be much higher.
If the plans change and National Defence decides to use the F-35 for the same duties as the CF-18 fleet, it would bring the fleet’s lifecycle cost to 2052 to more than $50 billion at a minimum.
KPMG also noted that if National Defence restricts F-35 flying time as planned, each F-35 aircraft will have approximately 2,600 flying hours of its structural life remaining at the end of 30 years.
The accounting firm recommended that unusual occurrence “should be studied to help ensure its potential use is adequately reflected in future estimates.”
Critics of the project, and of the shortcomings that were pointed out by KPMG, said it should be no surprise Canadians do not believe the government over its plans for the project and the review of other aircraft.
“I think the vast majority of Canadians have seen enough to understand that misleading Canadians is pathological for this government,” said NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.).
“They suggest that flipping through brochures of other fighter jets—again—is a serious reset of the procurement process,” Mr. Kellway said.
“That is arrogant and cynical, it assumes Canadians are gullible and these numbers show that that is clearly a miscalculation,” he told The Hill Times.
A former chief of procurement at National Defence, retired public servant Alan Williams, reiterated his call for an open competition to replace the CF-18.
“Frankly, I am surprised by how low both percentages are,” Mr. Williams said.
“First, the government has continuously misled Parliament and Canadian citizens from the beginning on all aspects of this fiasco,” he told The Hill Times.
“Second, unless and until the government states that it will be modifying the statement of [new aircraft] requirements to ensure it is not fixed only for the F-35 and making it public and conducting an open, fair and transparent competition, there is no reason to believe the government intends to deviate from the purchase of the F-35,” he said.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment