GinnerDrones in the mix?
I can’t imagine that they can deal with this issue in the short-term but could use the potential for JUSTAS as an excuse/justification for a smaller fighter purchase. they could also look at a LCA capability but that takes a real stretch of imagination.
Older article
The Predator C and Polar Hawk were the last two platforms rumoured to be in the running in 2015.
Color me skeptical. :rolleyes:
GinnerThis whole thing is stupid, the Canadians should have bought F-16s or F-15s in the first place, now 35 years later they figured out their F-18s lack range so they want to replace them with F-16s, F-15s, or even more silly….more F-18’s. And you can’t tell me these F-18s have reached their service life because the USAF has F-15s that are older, have much more hours on the airframes, have been flown harder and are still in service and being upgraded for many more years in service. Where as Canadian F-18s don’t even all get used but are rotated through time in storage. And then you have eurocanards which are horribly expensive for no significant improvement, in fact the F-18 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the eurocanards. But if they want to spend money needlessly and get rid of perfectly fine fighters, well, why not.
There is so much wrong here it’s pretty tough to reply. The CF-18 did well for Canada. I don’t think anyone regrets that purchase. The Rafale and EF are vastly superior to the CF-18. The Gripen E is pretty tough to evaluate. The F-15 might have been a decent choice for Canada at the time, but there is a lot the CF-18’s could do that the F-15 could not in a Canadian context and the F-15 was a wicked expensive plane to fly and acquire in comparison. the RCAF had a clear preference for twin engines in the last acquisition. That is well documented. They appear to have changed their tune this time round.
GinnerYou are missing the point. The reason I requested you provide them for FWSAR is that of any acquisition that could have publicly released requirements that would have been it but it didn’t. These were held internally and only provided to the list of preferred bidders.
You won’t be able to post the Fighter requirements because they won’t publish them, just like they didn’t for FWSAR and for almost all other defence procurements. Requirements are not publicly disseminated or if they are, what are disseminated publicly are merely hand waving high level requirements that mean little.
In the Canadian Fighter replacement case what you will probably see publicly released are
1. Need fighter
2. Have to fulfil nations missions of Domestic and expeditionary nature
3. Must be suitable and sustainable past 2040
4. Lowest cost bid over the timeframe of operation
The requirements for FWSAR were created and issued before the Liberals took over. They essentially gave the program the push to keep going. The RFP is closed (earlier this year).
I don’t expect to see a detailed set of requirements (such as a 600 line feature request) on the F18 replacement. I do expect to see something like this:
* Possible fixed acquisition budget of say 9 billion: with vendors stating how many planes they can provide (in a range between 48 and 72 airframes) OR fixed number of fighters (48 or 65)
* Declaration of industrial offsets as a required element (or a bonus requirement) for a % of the acquisition cost
* General airframe characteristics (survivability/stealth, single engine or twin engine)
* Ability to adhere to the 6 core missions (point 2 in your list)
* Point 3 in your list
I also expect that coming out of the public consultation we will have a pretty clear statement to the media about the value and importance of low-observability in the acquisition. If the senior staff in the RCAF is unhappy with the requirements I think you will also see a ton of leaks lamenting that fact…specifically if it looks like the F35 is indeed a contender in name only.
Something else to watch….does Saab decline to bid (as they did here before and in Denmark) which means the requirements were written in such as way as to make the believe that they have no chance of winning (a single engine/US vendor preference red flag). If Saab does participate, then we have something really interesting going on. If they decline, my feeling is it’s down to either twin engine aircraft or the US vendors.
My expectation is that there are only going to be four or two bidders on the project. (LM, Saab, Boeing and EF – open competition) or (EF, Boeing – two engines) or (Boeing, LM – US vendors). Rightly or wrongly I think Rafale is going to be out, Saab also likely self-selects out. I think that will tell us an awful lot about the requirements we don’t get to see.
GinnerLooking at the military procurements page I don’t see any requirements. Can you provide me with an example of where requirements for a Canadian military system have been made public? Using FWSAR as an example I could not find a requirement set, just a list of preferred bidders.
When there is something available I will post it. It sounds like end-of year 2016 to get the requirements out (for the fighter project). The FWSAR is well along in the process now.
GinnerThat National Post article I linked above could make this entire conversation pretty moot. So they may be thinking:
1.) Smaller number of planes – If it leads to staggered buys in the future that would not terrible
2.) Cheaper planes – OK
3.) Both cheaper and fewer – Uh Oh
That would really redefine the RCAF (that branch would also be a thing of the past) as a North America only defense force + Baltic and Icelandic patrols and NATO exercises. There would be no bandwidth available at any point to deploy to places like Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan/Bosnia. That’s a game changer for sure.
It also intimated that the F-35 was still not a real consideration and that the European vendors are all long shots. So the SH is the heavy favourite…..and potentially only 48 of them.
More here:
http://www.vauxhalladvance.com/editorial/2016/03/10/streamlined-military-mixed-blessing-for-canada/
GinnerGinnerThe swiss leak was beyond capability requirements obviously. And obviously we won’t see the classified submission documentation. Again….you can fully expect to see a statement of requirements.
I suppose it’s possible they will just post it here:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/next-gen-fighter.page
GinnerMore than likely he or his defence minister have now received the classified briefings and have a better understanding of the size and scope of industrial participation.
Or they cannot claim to have a fair, open and transparent process by specifically excluding a vendor who may have the best plane. We shall see what the requirements look like.
GinnerYou live in a Parliamentary Republic. You vote for representatives who make decisions on your behalf.
Trust is required in this type of relationship. You have to trust your representative will do what is best for his/her constituents and the representative has to trust the appointed military officials gives him accurate information to make a decision.
If the cycle of trust is broken, you replace the representative during the next election and the new representatives replace the untrustworthy military officials.
Was Trudeau’s rejection of F-35 a simple case of pandering to his leftist base? Or has he demonstrated that Canadian military officials falsely conspired to select F-35 without proper (probably classified) evidence? Who has Trudeau fired or brought up on charges? Nobody.
I have no idea where you are going with this post. We fired the elected representatives for this and many many other reasons. So that happened. Yay us.
“Some highlights of the F-35 saga in Canada:
1990s — U.S. military begins looking for a new fighter jet. The plan is to produce a high-tech stealth aircraft that, at a time of soaring costs, would be relatively affordable. It is dubbed the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and is supposed to cost about $50 million per plane.
1997 — Canada signs on as an “informed partner” to the JSF program and commits $10 million. The investment by the Liberal government is to help Canadian companies obtain contracts on the program. No commitment is made to buy the plane.
2001 — Lockheed-Martin’s aircraft design is chosen for the JSF and designated the F-35.
2002 — Canada signs on to the JSF second phase.
2006 — The Canadian air force concludes the F-35 is the most cost effective plane to meet its needs. But only one JSF test model existed at that time and there was no way to actually prove the JSF had the lowest cost per aircraft or that it would be the cheapest to fly.
2006 – The Conservative government signs up for the next phase of the JSF program. It emphasizes the commitment does not mean Canada will purchase the plane.
2009 — DND asks the Conservative government for permission to buy the F-35. Permission is denied.
2010 – Worried about rising development costs the Pentagon informs Congress that JSF costs are climbing.
2010 – In late May, Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay tells the Commons that Canada will buy the F-35. Ninety minutes later, he says he misspoke and announces there will be an open competition with all aircraft considered. Six weeks later, ignoring what he previously said, MacKay announces Canada will purchase 65 F-35s. The cost is estimated by the government to be $9 billion. Deliveries would begin in 2016.
2011 — In January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacks a Liberal plan to hold a competition for a new fighter jet. He says it would hurt Canada’s aerospace industry. “I don’t understand how the Liberal MPs from this region could want to cancel the contract,” said Harper, during a visit to a helicopter plant in Quebec.
Critics point out that Harper is being misleading since no contract had been signed.
Several months later, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page releases a report predicting F-35 program will cost $30 billion over 30 years. National Defence says price is $14.7 billion.
2011 – In November Conservative MP Julian Fantino outlines the government’s F-35 plan. “We will purchase the F-35,” Fantino said. “We’re on record. We’re part of the crusade. We’re not backing down.”
A little more than a week later Fantino states: “There’s a plan A, there’s a plan B, there’s a plan C, there’s a plan Z and they’re all F-35s.”
2012 — Auditor General Michael Ferguson releases a report in April that identifies major problems with the procurement process and finds the full cost to be closer to $25 billion. The Conservatives unveil a plan to review the F-35 program, promising full transparency and consideration of other options. Government also admits it knew full cost was $25 billion before 2011 election.
2012 – In August, Conservative MP Chris Alexander claims during an interview on CBC that the Conservatives never said they would buy the F-35. As video of Peter MacKay’s 2010 F-35 purchase announcement is shown in the background, Alexander continues to claim that it was opposition MPs who misled the public into thinking the government stated it would buy the aircraft.
2012 — In December the government receives the report from an independent auditor who sets the full cost of Canada’s proposed F-35 purchase at $44.8 billion. The acquisition is put on hold until other jets can be studied.
2014 – The review of various fighter jets is submitted to the government in June. No decision is made by the Conservative government.
Instead it approves an upgrade to the CF-18 fleet to keep the planes flying until 2025″
GinnerAs a fellow Canadian I can identify with Ginner’s frustration with the procurement process thus far.
However I think its hypocritical to blame the former Conservative government for going with the sole source program that the previous Liberal government had made us a part of.
The fact we participated as an investor in the F35 project (good idea) should not grant the government the right to bind us to it without doing their homework. We pau them to make good decisions. They took a dysfunctional procurement problem and made it so much worse by kicking the can down the road to boost their budget numbers while not properly researching alternatives to support their budget allocation. They screwed the canadian forces for a long time to come. It was a classic poison pill.
GinnerYou will probably never be happy with any procurement decision for sophisticated weapons systems because the classified data upon which those decisions are made is not releasable to the public.
Airplanes
Ships
Submarines
Missiles
Communications
Radars
Etc.
Only the enthusiaist in me wants to debate the strengths and limitattions of military equipment. The taxpayer and citizen part of me has the following expectations:
Make sure the people we pay to defend the country are as safe as they can be while being able to to do their jobs effectively
Politicians provide and maintain a consistent budget that can make that happen and the political backing to support industrial research and development where we have capabilities and buy off the shelf where we do not
De politicize procurement while still requiring proper evaluation of vendors in every acquisition where there is choice
Participate in projects that we may end up purchasing from without forcing a sole source decision as a result of program investment
Hire great people to do the evaluation of requirements (and imprison those that end up conflicted….only half kidding here)
Pretty much everyone has the same expectations here so…no need to continue on with that.
I am glad Canada participated in the F35 project in the first place. That’s what we should do. I am seriously angry that they decided to sole source without properly evaluating alternatives and obfuscated program costs. They drew a set of requirements after the fact that actually did not reflect or properly weight the mission set that we actually need the equipment for. They botched the process and then lied about it.
If the F35 is the right platform and we can afford to buy maintain and operate it and meet all the other needs we have…so be it. I’ll be convinced then…..and no I won’t expect a technical briefing. That’s what this place is for.
Finally…military procurement and politicians in Canada have to earn back our trust. The Helicopter and Sub purchases provide ample evidence why. The loss of capability to support our navy is yet another example.
GinnerNo it was never intended as an upgrade. The government was going to scrap the C/D planes and use a minimum of their parts for the new planes, the whole plan was disguised as a rebuild.
I’m actually a bit surprised that the politicians themselves realized how stupid that was and all new Gripen’s will be new builds.
I can’t find the latest info on which parts are common and which aren’t. I thought quite a few major components are now composites.
GinnerNot as different from Gripen C/D as the Super Hornet is from F-18A-D. Look up the dimensions. And it’s come about by a very different process. The Super Hornet was a new aircraft from the start, disguised as an upgrade. Gripen E began as an upgrade, with a prototype modified from a JAS39D, & the scope of the changes increased, IIRC in response to customer requests.
You cannot upgrade a C/D to an E/F….therefore it’s not an upgrade. The parts commonality may be higher than the f18 and flanker versions but make no mistake…it’s a new plane.
GinnerYour claim has a little flaw in it… Right now, while the French are phasing out the Mirage 2000, India has its Mirages upgraded, including plenty of electronics coming from Rafale program…
If Canada buys the Rafale, it most definitely won’t all of a sudden become unsupported/unupgradable 10-15 years from now
It’s clearly strategic for France and will continue to be relevant for a long while yet.
That said, while I may think it is the best plane out there right now, unless Dassault starts picking up a whole bunch of weapons certification requests for things we already own, we would have to go it alone on maintaining the currency of weapons integration with the Rafale. It’s not a small cost either.
As others have pointed out, it’s also a whole lot cheaper to buy the Rafale off the shelf than to manufacture it in Canada. We’d be buying in to some extent.
Love the plane.
GinnerI prefer the single vendor aproach to the show the Norwegians pulled off. If single engine is no issue, then there are not that many advantages the other competitors offer.
Typhoon may be the best interceptor, Gripen is the cheapest and Rafale/Shornet are extremely capable multirole fighters. But in the end the F-35 is not that far behind in old fashioned performance parameters and offers all the advantages of a clean sheet 5 gen design.
And for Typhoon/SHornet time is running out. I would bet on the F-35 in an open competition.
Explain the Norwegian comment. I’m curious what you meant.
There are very few competitions left to determine the fate of the various 4 + platforms.
Gripen has legs in the export market for smaller countries for some time. I don’t see that platform doing anything but increasing export interest.
Denmark, Finland, Belgium and Canada are the significant ones. I also wonder what Germany is going to do. They are facing a pretty sticky internal situation as well as end of the road for Tornadoes.
Given the decent size of the potential Canadian purchase it could be a pretty interesting dust-up from a timing standpoint. Boeing is lobbying pretty hard. Saab has no immediate pressure. Dassault may be in some trouble if India goes sideways. EF could sneak out 1 or 2 wins in that bunch. Might be enough critical mass to support ongoing development.
I’d guess Finland is Gripen vs Super Hornet. Timing is not on the F18’s side.
Denmark is probably F35 vs EF. Gripen could re-enter if they think they have an honest shot.
Belgium could go a number of ways.
Once these settle out it’s pretty much the end of the line for decent sized buys.
Sign In
