Mark Collins – US F-35 Total Program Costs Down Slightly/More Canadian New Fighter Questionnaires

From a good report by Reuters:

FACTBOX-What does Lockheed’s F-35 fighter jet really cost?
…
The Pentagon released new cost projections for 78 major weapons programs on Thursday [May 23], including the F-35 program which showed the first decline in cost after years of increases and restructurings ["SELECTED ACQUISITION REPORT(SAR) SUMMARY TABLES"]…

Following are some key figures about the F-35 program:

COST OF THE OVERALL PROGRAM

* A new U.S. Defense Department estimate put the cost of developing, testing and building the F-35 multi-role fighter jet at $391.2 billion, down from last year’s estimate of $395.7 billion [by some $4.5 billion, lifetime]. The forecast assumes U.S. purchases of 2,443 production jets, on top of 14 test planes…

COST PER JET

* New cost estimates prepared by the Pentagon showed a drop in the projected average cost of the Air Force and Marine Corps variants over the life of the program[emphasis added], but the projected cost of the U.S. Navy variant for aircraft carriers edged higher.

* The Pentagon now forecasts that the conventional takeoff A-model will average a cost of $76.8 million per plane, excluding R&D costs, down which is $1.9 million less than the estimate provided last year. The B-model, which can take off and land like a helicopter, is slated to cost $103.6 million per plane.

* The latest estimate put the cost of the carrier variant at $88.7 million per plane, up $1.7 million from last year.

* The fifth and most recent batch of jets ordered by the Pentagon cost 4 percent less than the previous order, and prices should come down steadily in the future, according to Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, who runs the F-35 program for the Pentagon…

 Over time, as production quantities increase, the jets are expected to start dropping in price. The per-plane forecasts factor in foreign orders, which are not included in the U.S. development, procurement and operating cost.

[Lieutenant General Christopher] Bogdan [Pentagon F-35 program head] recently said he expected to reach the target price at least for the A-model by 2020, when Australia is due to start buying the first of the 100 F-35s currently in its plans [see here, plus "Comments"].

Lockheed executives say they believe the government’s estimates are too conservative, and predict that the price of the new warplane will be even lower once the company starts full-rate production later this decade [see also: "F-35 Costs: LockMart vs the USAF"]…

Meanwhile, more Canadian government new fighter questionnaires, and LockMart, atMILNEWS.ca:

• F-35 Tug o’ War (1)  “The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat has released two questionnaires to industry in order to obtain information on the price of available fighter aircraft and the potential benefits to Canadian industry. This engagement is part of the evaluation of options to replace Canada’s CF-18 fleet.  The five companies with available aircraft are invited to complete the questionnaire seeking rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates by early July. The Secretariat is also issuing a draft questionnaire to obtain information on potential industrial benefits to Canada. After feedback from the companies is reviewed and incorporated, a final questionnaire will be sent to the companies for completion at a later date, as was done with other questionnaires ….”
• F-35 Tug o’ War (2)  LockMart:  They’re what Canada needs – just ask us!  “Its purchase cost jumped by $20 million apiece somewhere along the way, it has been plagued by technical problems and cost overruns and has been roundly criticized by top Pentagon officials and pilots.  But Lockheed Martin Corp. is deploying the big artillery at its disposal to convince Canadians — and Ottawa — that its F-35 is still the best fighter jet to wage the coming battle to protect Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.  The world’s largest defence contractor rolled out its cross-Canada road show in Montreal Wednesday [May 22] to vaunt the virtues of the F-35, the most expensive weapons program in history, at more than $400 billion U.S. over decades ….”

Earlier:

New Canadian Fighter Questionnaire…

And some recent high-hoping:

Go-to-War USAF F-35As in 2016?

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – Arctic Sovereignty Hoo Hah Letter to Editor Printed!

In the Winnipeg Free Press, May 24–scroll down, title theirs (links added):

Arctic sovereignty undisputed

Robert Murray’s May 21 article, Harper embraces multilateralism on Arctic issues, claims “the necessary actions that would be required to actually protect Canada’s Arctic claims” have not been taken by the Conservative government. But there is no need for such protection.

The government’s own major 2009 paper on the North, in the section headed “Exercising Our Arctic Sovereignty“, states clearly: “Canada’s sovereignty over its Arctic lands and islands is undisputed, with the exception of [tiny] Hans Island, which is claimed by Denmark.”

There is as much need to assert our land sovereignty by increasing Canada’s military presence in the North as there is in, say, very sparsely populated and resource-rich Labrador. Yet no one is suggesting the government take action to ensure that Labrador stays safely within Canada.

Canada and the U.S. actually do have a dispute over our claim that the Northwest Passage is an internal waterway. But it’s not just the Americans. Ours is a claim that almost no one accepts, including the European Union and Japan. (There is also a bilateral dispute with the U.S. over the Beaufort Sea boundary.)

And in fact our claim to the passage is quite shaky in terms of international law. This is a major reason no Canadian government has sought to have that claim adjudicated by, say, the International Court of Justice — no legal action to “protect” is really feasible.

The passage aside, the great mass of our Arctic waters are as undisputed as our land. We have not “lagged behind” concerning our sovereignty, as Murray as asserts.

MARK COLLINS

The final paragraph of the letter was omitted:

So perhaps it would be best if we could all calm down about supposed threats to our precious Arctic sovereignty–threats the Conservative government has far too often raised, with an unwontedly jingoistic response on the part of far too many Canadians.

For a thorough discussion of NW Passage issues see the piece by James Kraska at p. 36 here.
Earlier:

Arctic–and Antarctic–Hoo Hah in Canadian Media/”Fighters and Arctic sovereignty”

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – Immigrant Riots in Stockholm

These events have had amazingly little coverage in the Canadian major media–and very, er, delicate foreign coverage (a clue perhaps has been italicized in first story):

Stockholm riots throw spotlight on Swedish inequality [BBC]

It’s hard to discern a pattern in the violence that has wracked the Swedish capital Stockholm for five nights.

Rioting in the city’s suburbs has raised the national debate about immigration, unemployment and social inequality.

…this week’s troubles have raised the volume of the debate in Sweden on immigration. About 15% of the population was born outside the country, the highest proportion in any of the Nordic countries.

The influx has come mostly from war-torn countries like Iraq, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia [Bosnia?], Afghanistan and Syria [emphasis added]. In 2012, Sweden accepted 44,000 asylum seekers, up by nearly 50% from a year earlier.

Stockholm Riots: Sweden’s ‘Urban Underclass‘ Demands Attention [Spiegel Online]

Wait, there are riots in Sweden?  [Foreign Policy, several videos]

Neither of the latter two stories mentions immigrants’ countries of origin.

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – “Summary Execution” via Drone: US Military, Not CIA, Part 3

Further to this post, and comments, more from Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
International News
The New York Times
C.I.A. to Focus More on Spying, a Difficult Shift  [see end of this post]
Wired News
Obama Swears Drone Surge Is Done
BBC News
Obama defends ‘just’ drones war  - More
The Hamilton Spectator
By the numbers: US drone strikes and estimated deaths
Wired News
Holder: We’ve Droned 4 Americans, 3 by Accident. Oops.
The Associated Press
Obama balances threats against Americans’ rights
BBC News
Obama shows a strong commitment to the drone programme  - More
The Associated Press
Obama addressing Naval Academy graduates
The Washington Times
Obama says al-Qaeda is on ‘a path to defeat’…

Plus from the estimable Steve Coll at the New Yorker: 

Books
Remote Control
Our drone delusion...

The Fifth Amendment asserts that no “person” shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” a statement that the Supreme Court has usually interpreted as requiring, among other things, that American citizens receive a fair trial and the right of appeal. The Obama Administration has never made clear why it thought that capturing Awlaki and bringing him to trial was infeasible. Nor has it described the specific standards it used to approve Awlaki’s execution. As things stand, Obama will bequeath to his successors a worrisome precedent: without trial, the President has the right to kill any U.S. citizen who is judged, on the basis of unpublished criteria, to have become an enemy combatant…

For years, both Israel’s security establishment and its public regarded targeted killing as an essential tool of counterterrorism policy. The recent film “The Gatekeepers,” which draws on interviews with past directors of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal-security service, shows how intelligence leaders gradually acquired a sadder and wiser outlook [see also: "J.L. Granatstein – The Israeli film Canada’s leaders should watch"]. In the film, several former Shin Bet leaders argue forcefully that terrorism is ultimately a political problem that cannot be resolved by endless campaigns of assassination…

Obama’s enthusiasm for drones—which he believes minimizes the risk to American forces and non-combatants on the ground—is unnervingly reminiscent of Eisenhower’s enthusiasm for poisoning schemes and coup plots. (The President’s foreign-policy advisers periodically cite Eisenhower as an inspiration.) Drone strikes are also defended on the ground that they have killed terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen before those terrorists could kill Americans in Times Square or on the Mall, in Washington. There is no way to assess these claims: the official secrecy surrounding the program makes it impossible to judge the results.

Drone strikes have surely thinned Al Qaeda’s ranks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and reduced pressure on American forces fighting the Taliban. But has the program made America safer?..

America’s drone campaign is also creating an ominous global precedent. Ten years or less from now, China will likely be able to field armed drones. How might its Politburo apply Obama’s doctrines to Tibetan activists holding meetings in Nepal [emphasis added]?..

As for the balance of the CIA’s covert/clandestine (action vs espionage) activities:

The Meaner, If Not Leaner, Kinetic CIA [2011]

A Less “Kinetic” CIA under Brennan?

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

J.L. Granatstein – Shed a little light on JTF2 secrets

From the Ottawa Citizen

The Canadian Special Operations Forces Command has recently produced a well-done three-minute video that shows its men and women operating in the air, at sea, and on land. We see the soldiers rappelling from helicopters, using fast boats, and clearing buildings, and the overall image is of highly competent troops doing difficult jobs with great skill. Near the end the words “we will find a way” appear, a near perfect description of the Special Operations role.

The Command comprises four units: Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2); the Canadian Special Operations Regiment; 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron; and the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, which is highly trained to deal with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents.

JTF 2 is at once the best- and least-known of the Command’s units. Members deployed to Afghanistan, for example, before the end of 2001 and are believed to be still operating there. Many observers think JTF 2 had a role in Libya and in Mali, and its members are sometimes visible on protective duties when the Prime Minister travels abroad to dangerous areas. The unit also staged a demonstration during recent Arctic exercises, and now there is the video which must be intended as a recruiting tool.

In fact, recruiting JTF 2 soldiers appears to be difficult enough that the unit website features a page, unrevised since 2008, on the “Myths Regarding JTF 2.” The first myth raised: “JTF 2 is a paramilitary organization.” No, it is a unit of the Canadian Armed Forces created in 1993 from personnel from a wide range of military occupations. The members can come from combat arms and supporting elements, all carefully screened and can include women “who complete the JTF 2 selection process.” That process is rigorous, “scientifically designed and validated.”

The standards “are not gender specific and encompass the individuals’ physical abilities, professional skill sets, integrity, psychological profile, mental aptitude, discipline, and maturity.” Perhaps JTF 2 protests its gender neutrality too much, but the website is careful to state that, contrary to myth, applicants do not need to know someone in the unit to get in.

But can you be married and be in JTF 2? And if so, will the divorce rate be higher than average? Will your family ever be told where you are serving?

All myths, we are told. JTF 2 soldiers can be single or married and, the website carefully answers, “divorce rates are comparable to those of Canadian Forces averages,” which may well be higher than the Canadian norm but “many of the missions assigned to JTF 2 in support of Canadian security necessitate a stringent operational security policy.

As such, many unit missions require that JTF 2 members provide little to no deployment details to their family.” That policy will surely be hard on spouses and children, even if “every opportunity is made to ensure adequate communication between unit members and their family during deployments.”

Then, slipping slightly into silliness, the Myths page dispels the notion that tattoos might make a volunteer ineligible for JTF 2: “physical identifiers do not have any bearing on a Canadian Forces’ member’s eligibility for service.” Moreover, once in JTF 2, it is possible to leave the unit, contrary to the apparent received wisdom that there is no escape: “Although time served … varies from member to member, regulations require … a minimum amount of time with the unit.”

Finally, JTF 2 is careful to note that it is not true that the unit operates outside the law. “All JTF 2 activities are conducted within the bounds of Canadian law,” the website notes, and the government authorizes the overall missions and tasks. The unit, moreover, is accountable to the chief of the defence staff, who in turn is accountable to the minister of national defence and then to the prime minister.

All this helps dispel misconceptions. But the striking thing is that Joint Task Force 2, much like the entire Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, has operated in such secrecy that myths began to develop. The Americans, British, and Australians have capable Special Operations units too, and somehow they push the bounds of operational secrecy open just enough to reveal something of their work.

The film Zero Dark Thirty on the killing of Osama bin Laden is merely the most recent U.S. example. Operational secrecy is a necessity, and the identity of JTF 2 personnel needs to be protected.

But after-the-fact details on successes and failures should be offered to the public. That way, the myths will not build up; that way, a website debunking them will never be necessary.

J.L. Granatstein is a distinguished research fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Mark Collins – Afghanistan Post-2014: Germans, Swedes (!), Aussies…Canadians?

Well, well, well:

More Nations to Announce Post-2014 Afghanistan Presence

After the recent announcements by Germany and Sweden to retain limited military footprint in Afghanistan after 2014, an International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) Spokesman on Wednesday said that there are ten other nations to announce their post-2014 presence soon.

The Isaf Spokesman Brigadier General Gunter Katz said that the Nato member countries and ten of its allies are interested to have military presence in Afghanistan after the Isaf mission comes to an end by the end of next year.

“The 28 nation plus ten partner nations declared that they are willing to contribute. Germany and Sweden [more here]  gave concrete numbers and we are quite confident that other nations will follow soon,” said Gen Katz.

Asked whether more foreign countries would announce their willingness after the Australian defence minister on Tuesday [May 21] said that his country is willing to keep some troops post-2014 [more here], Gen Katz said that “there are ten other nations” to announce their post-2014 presence, but added that the Nato headquarters should be able to elaborate.

He didn’t mention the names of those countries…

Anyone want to ask prime minister Harper, foreign minister Baird, or national defence minister MacKay if Canada is one of them?  Maybe Chris Alexander (he’s on TV a lot)?  Ever see anything in our major media about those other nations and Afghanistan?

Relevant:

Aussies Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Post-2014, Canadian Forces Not

Bundeswehr to Stay in Afghanistan Post-2014…

Is the Canadian Government Interested in Afghanistan’s Military Future?

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – Industrial and Regional Benefits: What Are They Good For?

Absolutely IRBs.  What The Economist thinks:

The defence industry
Guns and sugar
More governments are insisting that weapons-sellers invest in side deals to help them develop their industries. This is a bad idea

Otherwise not a Good Thing.  Related:

“Andrew Coyne: Pork-barrel happy report could have catastrophic effect on $240-billion military procurement plan”

Oinkety, oinkety.  The IRB policy is being applied, one way or another, to the government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, scroll down here.  That strategy is enough of a disaster anyway through insisting (as any Canadian government, spineless all, would) that RCN and CCG ships be built in Canada.

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – “[US] Navy’s Triton Recon Drone Makes First Flight”

Further to this post on the aircraft),

Aussies Moving Smartly on Maritime Patrol Drones

Unlike Canada.  Further to this post,

Aussies Look Like Moving on Drones, Canada Not (plus manned maritime patrol)
…

have a look (with video too):
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/MQ-4C-Triton-first-flight-19879-630×371.jpg

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is aResearch Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – BBC Poll: We’re No. 2, Plus as Two-Thirds of the Axis Turns

Funny old world (the other Axis member not listed):

…

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67748000/jpg/_67748860_67748859.jpg

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – “Summary Execution” via Drone: US Military, Not CIA, Part 2

Further to this post, it looks like the Decider-in-Chief will make the killing program a bit more, er, transparent with a speech Thursday, May 23–but the CIA will keep the Pakistan action for now; meanwhile attacks are down:

U.S. to Shift Drone Command
Mounting Criticism Sparks Push to Move Lethal Program to Military From CIA

Debate Aside, Number of Drone Strikes Drops Sharply

On the other hand…

US Endless and Omnipresent War on Terror?..

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute