James Hasik continues to provide the kind of sophisticated analysis that Canadian Defence Review can only aspire to. In an April 3rd, 2013 post entitled “How the US may buy at most 750 F-35s” he provides the math to show that “one gets about 6.2 late-model fighter jets for about every billion dollars in total annual military spending” (1)
Even after playing with the math, deleting the top and bottom of the curve and some of the outliers (how can Greece afford 200 fighters anyway?) I still end up with a figure of something like 5.9 jets per US billions of dollars in total annual military spending. (The raw figures are provided below for those who wish to make their own calculations.)
By this measure Canada should have, and in theory can afford, (18.36 billion dollars in defence spending times a ratio of 5.9) something like 108 jet fighters. Currently Canada has some 77 F-18’s in service. Why this discrepancy? Perhaps the mistake comes from adding in countries that don’t have first world type economies.
Perhaps we should consider only first world economies like Japan, France, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Australia, countries with an average GDP in some cases of less then Canada’s. (2) If we do, we still come out with a ratio implying something like 4.65 jets per billion spent on defence for a total of at least 85 jets. This is a figure not far from the average number of jet fighters that we previously maintained.
Yet the government says that 65 jets, or 9 billion worth, which ever comes first, are the most we need/can afford. There may be even fewer, according to the KPMG report (3) on F-35 acquisition “DND has advised that their risk mitigation strategy ... is to reduce the number of aircraft acquired,” the analysis states. “This could reduce the initial fleet to as low as 55 aircraft, which is below DND’s current stated requirements.” (3)
Fortunately in
Three decades on, Mr. Augustine has been quoted as saying “we are right on target. Unfortunately nothing has changed.” In the long run, high unit costs have limited numbers. Since the 1970’s, the western world’s fleets of combat aircraft have shrunk, even as defence spending has increased. (6)
The question is, how do we escape this downward spiral? The F-35 was supposed to be the answer. It was initially designed to be no more expensive to purchase and less expensive to maintain then the fighters that proceeded it. That claim has turned out to be an illusion. For all its faults and detractors, and they are legion (7), that is it’s greatest disappointment. It has not been able to escape the inexorable pull of Augustine’s 16th law.
Even if the F-35 turns out to be able to meet all the technical specifications that its proponents give it credit for, its inability to meet its financial goals of affordability make it a failure. New kinds of thinking, radical ideas, and people willing to take the risks inherent in independent reasoning are going to be needed if we are to avoid a one fighter future and provide for the defence of
Country Spending Jets
US 645.70 2,682
Japan 59.44 201
Saudi 52.50 256
(1) How the US may buy at most 750 F-35s
(2) List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita
(2) List of countries by GDP (PPP ) per capita
(3) Next Generation Fighter Capability: Independent Review of Life Cycle Cost
(4) Augustine’s Laws
(5) Final Industry Engagement Request: Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire
(6) The cost of weapons; Defence spending in a time of austerity
(7) F-35 Posts