In Canada, the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has become a hot political issue. Canada warily eyes defense budget

HALIFAX, Canada — The severe defense spending cuts triggered by the failure of the deficit-reduction supercommittee have U.S. allies worried about the fallout.

And nowhere is this more evident than in Canada, where the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter had become a hot political issue even before the supercommittee announced just before Thanksgiving that it was giving up on attempts to craft a plan to save at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years.


The panel’s failure triggered $500 billion in cuts to Pentagon spending, which will begin in January 2013, on top of $350 billion already mandated. In a Nov. 14 letter to Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had warned that the F-35 could fall victim to such drastic reductions — causing a stir north of the border, where the program was already controversial.

“The wheels have fallen off the wagon,” David Christopherson, a member of Canada’s Parliament from the opposition New Democratic Party, told The Globe and Mail last month in response to Panetta’s letter.

But during a Nov. 18 visit to Halifax to meet with Defense Minister Peter MacKay, Panetta sought to reassure Canadians that the F-35 program was safe. Canada is a major investor in the program, planning to buy 65 of the next-generation stealth fighter jets for about $9 billion. The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper sees the F-35 as crucial to maintaining an integrated air defense with the United States, which has for 50 years operated under the joint North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado.

“Let me make very clear that the United States is committed to the development of the F-35 and to a cooperative relationship with the F-35 with our Canadian friends,” Panetta said at a joint news conference with MacKay. “I feel very confident that we’ll get funding for the F-35 program. … We need to have this. It’s true for us. It’s true for our partners — and not only Canadians but others who are going to work with us and participate with us in the development of the … F-35.”

Dismissing the controversy in his country as “clatter and noise,” MacKay declared: “This program is going ahead. Clearly, budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation. We are dealing with our budgets as all countries are dealing with [their budgets], but we are not wavering on our commitment to this program.”

“There are pillars within every defense department,” he added. “This is one of those pillars — having the ability to protect your sovereignty. And there is a direct link, a direct link between our national sovereignty and our ability to protect our airspace, our commitments through NORAD, our NATO commitments.”

Other countries in the program include Britain, which will take delivery of its first short takeoff and vertical landing version of the F-35 next year; Australia; Denmark; Italy; Norway; the Netherlands; and Turkey. Israel also plans to purchase 20 of the aircraft for $2.75 billion.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, plans to spend about $380 billion to replace most Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft with more than 2,400 F-35 fighters in three variants. It’s the largest U.S. defense program ever, and the estimated total operating cost of up to $1 trillion has outraged lawmakers and put the entire JSF program on the list of possible targets for budget cuts.

In a floor speech last month on the annual defense policy bill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said panel members “share both a deep concern about the rising cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program … and a strong belief that the Department of Defense must take stronger action to contain these costs.”

The bill would require the next F-35 contract to be conducted on a fixed-price basis, with principal contractor Lockheed Martin assuming full responsibility for all costs above the specified target amount. That’s an attempt, Levin said, to keep costs down and avert premature termination of the program.

But mammoth acquisition programs such as the F-35 are the quickest and easiest way to meet the savings triggered by the supercommittee’s failure, and so, they’re the most likely early targets, explained Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“The Joint Strike Fighter obviously stands out. It is the largest program in the DoD portfolio, and I think size matters here,” Harrison said. “When you are going down the list of programs, and you are looking to free up billions of dollars, you’re going to start by looking at the big programs.”

It won’t be the first time the F-35 has been in the budget cutters’ sights. A commission appointed by President Barack Obama to study ways to reduce the national debt recommended nearly a year ago that $9.5 billion could be saved through fiscal year 2015 by replacing about half of planned F-35 purchases with newer models of current fighters. The military did not need that many fighters with the capabilities of the F-35, the commission concluded.

The commission — chaired by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles, who was a chief of staff in the Clinton White House — also recommended canceling the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the F-35 for the Marine Corps, which has only recently gotten back on track after technical problems that delayed its scheduled testing.