National Defence Committee on Sept. 15th, 2010

[Dan Ross]

Perhaps I could start, and Mr. Slack could give you some more specifics on studies that the partner countries and the joint project office have done.

In a more global sense, we expect it to be in the same range of $250 million annually that we spend on F-18s or any other similar aircraft. However, we'll have not a fleet of 138 but a fleet of 65. We'll have a single engine instead of dual engines. It's well known that fifty percent of the maintenance cost for a jet fighter is for the engine. So we're going to a very reliable level of technology and engine that is several generations beyond the F-18 engine, and a single engine.

Clearly, globally again, we are going to exercise the economy of scale, with all of our partners, on spare parts, maintenance procedures, the cost of developing new releases of software, and so on, and we really hope to drive that down below what we have had to expend to maintain our F-18s.

Perhaps Mr. Slack could comment a bit more on some of the detailed studies.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

He can, within 25 seconds.

[Michael Slack]

I can do it in 25 seconds.

We're looking at a range of different opportunities to cooperate with our partners on this program in the whole sustainment area. One of the things we're looking at doing, for example, is pooling our spare parts with the other partners. This alone could yield a 47% reduction in the number of spare parts that we would have to buy over the life of our program. There will be significant cost savings to the department if we can realize that particular goal.

Other things we're looking at include a 21% reduction in the acquisition of equipment to support the jets over the life of the program and a significant reduction in the amount of time it's going to take to train our maintainers, as well as the number of maintainers we might need at our bases, to support these particular aircraft. All of these things--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you. We may come back to that.

We will now go to Mr. Calkins for five minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions. I have one question about the aircraft itself, but my curiosity's been piqued by the supply chain.

It just occurred to me that when we have a global supply chain, with the whole supply-chain management for the parts, whether it's for the ordinances, whether it's for the parts for the aircraft, with our consortium partners in this venture, what assurances do we have that there will be continuity of that supply chain? What redundancies are built in place, through a contract or through a memorandum of understanding, to ensure that all available necessary parts and services are going to be provided and not just by a single subcontractor? At least I hope there will be some redundancy in the system.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Who's going to take that one?

Mr. Slack.

[Michael Slack]

I'll take that one, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, both Lockheed Martin and the joint strike fighter project office have done a rigorous analysis of the supply chain. Redundancy has been built in. There are many second sources of supply for the 40 critical components on the aircraft.

Every effort is going to be made to ensure that the international supply chain is robust and can operate as effectively as possible to meet the requirements of the build profiles we have for the program, for the 3,173 aircraft. Every attempt is being made now to reduce the risk of having an international supply chain on this particular program, and to keep the cost down as much as possible.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So is there anything in place, say any agreements amongst our partners, that would preclude or exclude or give priority access to the supply chain for a particular country, or is everybody equal partners as far as access goes?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Slack.

[Michael Slack]

Mr. Chairman, all the partners have equal opportunities when it comes to a lot of the production opportunities that are flowing from the program. These opportunities flow to the Government of Canada. They are entertained by Industry Canada and distributed. We identify Canadian suppliers that can meet the requirements of the program, and we provide that information back to Lockheed Martin to ensure that our suppliers are on the receiving end of the request for proposals that are distributed by the program.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

My last question, Mr. Chair, through you to anybody who wishes to answer, is this. According to the basic knowledge I have about the CF-18, I think it has two missiles and a cannon that's able to drop bombs. We have air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities there. Given the fact that we are going to sharply escalate the evolution of the technology through stealth, moving from fourth generation to fifth generation, what are we talking about insofar as ordinances and capabilities of the aircraft go? Is it going to have a cannon? It will obviously engage air-to-air. How is it going to engage air-to-ground? Are we going to be able to use these in counter-insurgency? Is it an excellent reconnaissance plane?

Can you just give me a little bit of information here?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

General Deschamps.

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

The airplane, because of stealth, has an internal weapons carriage capability. That's part of that stealth component where you're reducing profile. You can carry internally a significant amount of weapons, about 5,000 pounds worth, and because you can turn it into a conventional airplane as well as a stealth platform, you can carry externally another 13,000 pounds, which is as much if not more than some of the conventional airplanes around right now. The airplane will carry a range of weaponry depending upon the missions. It opens up whatever avenue we need to open up for multi-role, and we can choose what weapons we select downrange. We don't have to pick the weapons now. Because of all the partners, there is going to be a range of weapons, so we can select later if we want other weapons. The airplane has a lot of versatility concerning what it can carry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

When it comes to the operational, compared to the CF-18 from a flight range perspective, all of these things have been looked at in a comparative analysis. What kind of range does it have? Do we add on fuel tanks and all these other kinds of things that we normally would be able to expect from a fighter plane?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Burt.

[Col D. C. Burt]

Thank you for the question.

Our current aircraft has 16,000 pounds of fuel with three external fuel tanks. The conventional take-off and landing variant of the F-35 with internal fuel only is 18,500 pounds, so it has significantly more fuel just internally. It will have significantly more range and we can also put external tanks on the F-35. It will have significantly more range than we currently have, which is an incredibly important element when we look at flying across the far north of Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you.

I would remind our witnesses and the members of the committee that we would be more than happy to accept anything in writing, if you would like to expand on any of your answers today as well. Thank you very much.

Our last questioner for the second round is Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back to something that someone on the other side said; I forget who. This would be for Mr. Ross or perhaps one of the uniforms. The implication was that, because it was a joint proposal, maybe the Canadian-specific requirements for capability were somehow lost.

I would suggest that because we operate jointly with these allies around the world and in North America, in fact by doing a joint proposal with joint requirements, the airplane that we eventually come up with will have probably more capability than the strictly Canadian requirements, and therefore it gives us some options for meeting unknown situations down the road.

Is that a fair statement, Mr. Ross?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Ross.

[Dan Ross]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Hawn, as General Deschamps talked about, the joint requirements process and in fact the joint and combined process with international partners did result in three mutually complementary variants and a very comprehensive and flexible range of capabilities. You're right that it probably does exceed what Canadians uniquely would have asked for at the time, but it gives us tremendous growth potential and operational longevity over the next 35 years.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Just going back to what Mr. Bachand was talking about—I'll try Colonel Burt because that's who was picked on—is it pretty normal for somebody who builds a competing aircraft to say, “No, no, we can meet that requirement, we're better than those guys”?

I mean, is that a pretty normal thing for somebody to say?

[Dan Ross]

They tell me that every day.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I know.... Yes; that's probably good enough.

I do have to say, as a point of comment and going back to my personal experience 30 years ago with the new fighter aircraft project, the CF-18, that we were hearing exactly the same kind of people saying exactly the same things, raising the exact same criticisms as we're hearing today. And the CF-18 has been pretty darned successful over the past almost 30 years and will be for another 10 years, and I have absolutely no doubt this will be equally successful.

I want to talk to Mr. Ross a little bit. You've been ADM materiel for five years following Mr. Williams, who did a great job as ADM materiel. I have no question about that. Could you talk a little bit about how, in your time as ADM materiel, the whole procurement process and the process of industrial participation has evolved over that period of time to where we are today?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Ross, you have about two minutes.