How many schools could we build for $412 million – each?
As the Pentagon prepares for Canada’s withdrawal from the F-35 jet program, lawmakers in Washington are raising concerns that the U.S. too will have to cut its numbers of stealth fighters because of increasing costs.
Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau has promised to withdraw Canada from the F-35 program, saying it has become too costly. When that will happen is still unclear, as the Liberals won’t unveil the cabinet until Nov. 4.
A Liberal government would hold a competition to replace the current fleet of CF-18s and select a cheaper alternative to the F-35…
The Conservatives committed in 2010 to buy 65 of the aircraft but put that on hold because of the increased costs of the jet and allegations that the procurement process was not properly handled.
Before they were defeated in the election, the Conservatives said no decision on the F-35 had been made. But Bogdan told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that Canada was scheduled to buy the planes starting in 2017-18.
Harper caught in another lie.
The one-per-cent increase in the cost of the F-35 because of Canada’s decision to pull out of the program appears to be the least of the concerns for supporters of the aircraft.
The program is currently $200 billion over budget. It will cost an estimated $400 billion for the U.S. to buy the 2,443 aircraft it has determined it needs.
This is followed by threats of withholding orders from Canadian firms scheduled as subcontractors.
Trudeau said holding a competition for a new fighter jet would ensure Canadian firms receive work. Under the F-35 program, there were no guarantees Canadian companies would be entitled to a specific amount of work when Canada purchased the aircraft.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress to have as much economic gumption as Canada. The Beltway hacks have a consistent record of voting for hardware even when the Pentagon declares it worthless crap.
Eideard 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE / WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES / UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SUBJECT: F-35 Lightning II Program Update / WITNESS STATEMENT OF: Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan, USAF
Program Executive Officer, F-35. October 22nd, 2015 http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20151021/104087/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-BogdonUSAFC-20151021.pdf
“Another major contract award for another major Pentagon weapons system. Promises that it will stay on budget and schedule. And this time, Pentagon officials say, they mean it. But now that Northrop Grumman has won the lucrative, high-stakes competition to build the Long Range Strike Bomber, the most significant combat aircraft contract since the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the hard work is just beginning, analysts say. …The Air Force set the marker for the program at an average price of $550 million per plane if 100 planes are built. The first ones off the line would cost more. And then, as the production achieved efficiency, the last ones would cost less. But that figure was set in 2010 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to more than $600 million a plane. …the bomber isn’t the only major combat aircraft the Pentagon has to pay for. In a tight budget environment, the new bomber ‘could’ find itself competing for funding against the $400 billion F-35 program. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/28/northrop-grumman-may-have-won-the-long-range-strike-bomber-but-now-the-real-work-begins/ Re: “[This mysterious Super Bowl ad highlights a new bomber you’re not allowed to see]” go to “What Was Northrop Grumman’s Super Bowl Ad Selling?” @ http://www.popsci.com/what-was-northrup-grummans-super-bowl-ad-selling scroll down to ad.
p/s: “Powering Job Creation for America and its Allies : See how the F-35 contributes to your state’s economy” (interactive map) https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact Lockheed Martin, which draws 82% of its revenue from U.S. taxpayers, spread out F-35 manufacturing as widely as possible to ensure the program would be funded by politicians with voters dependent on the program for their livelihood. Lockheed spent $15.3 million on lobbying politicians in 2012, a year in which the company made $47 billion in revenue.