Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 908047 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2500 on: May 06, 2019, 19:18:58 »
Suspect Uzlu in right. ML Institute news release:

Quote
Assessing the Damage from Canada’s Fighter Replacement Fiasco: New MLI Report

OTTAWA, ON (May 6, 2019):  In a hard-hitting new Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, MLI Senior Fellow Richard Shimooka takes a critical look at the government’s approach to replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighters.  In the report, titled The Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada’s Fighter Replacement Fiasco, he argues that Ottawa’s performance on this file mirrors the SNC-Lavalin Scandal and the Mark Norman Affair.

“At their heart, these two incidents represent attempts by the Liberal government to circumvent established processes to meet their partisan interests,” Shimooka explains. “This description is just as apt for the fighter program.”

Canada is a participant in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program that has been developing the F-35s. These fighter jets were slotted to replace the RCAF’s aging CF-18s, but after the program was mired in political scandal under the previous government, the Liberal government changed plans.

“During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party promised not to buy the F-35 jets, but instead to use a competition to identify and subsequently purchase a lower-cost competitor… this decision proved to be impossible, unethical, and potentially illegal,” writes Shimooka.

From billions of dollars being wasted on a procurement process to fix a contrived capability gap to potentially threatening Canada’s defence relationship with the US, the report finds that political interests have consistently been put above Canada’s defence needs.

Shimooka argues that “the decisions made [regarding fighter jet replacement] were purely for reasons of political interest: not a single one could be claimed as being in the country’s national interest.”

The “fiasco,” as Shimooka describes it, has caught the attention of both Canada’s Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and senior US officials. According to documents never before seen by the public, the OAG had specifically cautioned the government against its chosen course of purchasing Australian Hornets as an interim measure in a draft report – and the final OAG report was heavily revised to obscure that recommendation.

Worse still, letters from US officials reveal that “resentment and distrust towards the government of Canada had grown, particularly within the US Air Force.” These letters, which again have not been made public until now, outline the significant strategic and economic benefits that have already been accrued from being part of the JSF Program. Yet they also contain an implicit (but clear) threat that Canada could be kicked out of the Program – if Ottawa continues with its current policy of trying to obtain guaranteed industrial benefits that, by their very nature, are not allowed under the JSF Program.

“There was a complete lack of logic of Canada’s policy, which seemed to ignore basic facts about membership in the JSF program, including clear advantages in cost and capability that the F-35 provided.”

Despite these persistent, high-level issues with the government’s chosen approach on the fighter jet replacement, the file has avoided serious public scrutiny. Shimooka finds that this happened in large part due to the successful gag orders levelled by the government.

“The government has also suppressed negative viewpoints within and outside the Department of National Defence, allegedly up to and including the deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet that highlighted why certain decisions should not be taken.”

Moving forward on the file may prove to be difficult; defence procurement woes have plagued Canada since Confederation, and the issues with the fighter jet replacement are deeper than just purchasing the right aircraft. Worse still, Shimooka says that the brunt of the burden of consistently poor decision-making in Ottawa will be borne by the RCAF itself.

“While the negative consequences are clear for Canada as a whole," Shimooka explains, "no community has felt the impact more than the RCAF. As a result of this government’s policies, its ability to conduct its most basic function, the defence of Canadian sovereignty and that of our allies, is diminishing rapidly.”

“It is a sad state of affairs.”
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/assessing-damage-canadas-fighter-replacement-fiasco-new-mli-report/

Full report here, US gov't letters at pp. 22-24 PDF:
http://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20190502_MLI_COMMENTARY_Shimooka_FWeb.pdf

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 19:26:52 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Iron 1

  • Guest
  • *
  • 320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2501 on: May 06, 2019, 19:22:52 »
Link to the MLI report... https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/assessing-damage-canadas-fighter-replacement-fiasco-new-mli-report/...this just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
There's not a lot in here that has not already been the subject of speculative discussion.
However? If the author's (numerous and obviously not willing to go public) sources are to believed/taken at face value?

Suffice to say that this is a pretty damning attack against the Trudeau Government's four year cluster-hump with regards to the whole sorry mess.
The attached appendices (DoD and JSF/JPO replies to the "RFP" demands issued by our current Government) provide black and white proof that we are digging our own grave as long as this prime minister is ru(i?)(n?)ning our country...

My two cents.
Well worth reading IMO.

Ron 

Edit by Loachman. Thou shalt not use the language that you did.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 19:36:07 by Loachman »

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,302
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2502 on: May 06, 2019, 21:10:01 »
Hopefully if/when a new Government is formed, this file would have been kicked down the road so many times we can pull an "Urgent Requirement" & just buy a plane with less self-created hassle than usual. 

Afghanistan did wonders for new Leopard 2's, C-130's, C-17's, Chinooks, etc etc.


In all fairness though, IRB has been a long standing requirement for doing business with the Government of Canada, regardless of what political party is in power. 

In regards to this particular file it may be in violation of the terms of our involvement in the project, but I truly doubt anybody at Procurement Canada connected those dots until it was brought to their attention by representatives of another government.  (Which in itself is concerning...)

At the end of the day, the Government (regardless of which party is in power) will have to balance the required IRB of a fighter contract with the amount of work possibly awarded with a JSF purchase. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2503 on: May 06, 2019, 22:22:22 »
So since Trudeau took power in 2015 no politicians or any bureaucrats have bothered to acquaint themselves with the contents of the 2006 F-35 MoU or even been briefed on it? Or, if so, failed to understand what it means for guaranteed offsets (none)? Then we are truly super stupid. See Section VII Industrial Participation:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/JSF_PSFD_MOU_-_Update_4_2010.PDF

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,302
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2504 on: May 07, 2019, 03:00:45 »
I hate to say this, as I don't want to sound flippant towards the current governing party...but I'm honestly leaning towards truly super stupid here Mark. 

I doubt someone who is informed of the details of the JSF participating clauses was party to the tenders being drafted.  I'm truly leaning towards truly stupid and/or oversight.  (Again, truly stupid.)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2505 on: May 07, 2019, 08:16:28 »
CBH99, IRBs (in the day, now ITBs for the last decade) were absolutely known and understood to not apply directly within the context of the original JSF sign-on by Canada in 2002.  Canadian high-tech has benefited greatly by the Program on the books since 2002, in an amount of industry revenues greater than the Government(s) successively have contributed to the program, or would have otherwise secured with a 100% IRB/offset program had such a contracting strategy (Direct Commercial Sale, or even FMS) been initiated by the Liberal Government back in 2002, when they committed Canada to participate in the JSF Program. They knew it was a program that would provide greater than unity return, even without buying the aircraft itself (although that was a reasonable expectation on the part of the Program).  The intent of participating in the JSF Program and larger (global) scale of industrial participation (being part of 2000+ aircraft supply chain for 30 years) was transformational (and fair credit to Chretien’s Government of the day) for Canadian aerospace industry, vice the transactional “what’s in it for me” approach of the government now, trying to wave the ‘protectors of our own industry’ flag now.  What we have now is the second round (Harper was first, shame on him then) of truly shameful dithering and can-kicking down the alley...shame on Trudeau now.

Just remember, if we had kept the Spitfire flying from its initial in-service date (1939) with the RCAF for the same length of time that the CF-188 will fly (1982-2028+), the fabric, wood and metal Spitfire would have still been flying 46 years later...1985...three years AFTER the Hornet entered service. 

Sad state of affairs. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2506 on: May 07, 2019, 11:08:50 »
Quote
“The government has also suppressed negative viewpoints within and outside the Department of National Defence, allegedly up to and including the deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet that highlighted why certain decisions should not be taken.”

Is it just me, or is this the most damning quote in the article?

The government doesn't just lie to public, it lies to itself?

Or is it just lying to the public?

What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2507 on: May 07, 2019, 13:15:23 »
Is it just me, or is this the most damning quote in the article?

The government doesn't just lie to public, it lies to itself?

Or is it just lying to the public?

What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?
Remember the accusation against Harper with his 'hidden agenda'?  The statement implies that someone or some group within the PMO has a hidden agenda and is deceiving the members of cabinet in order to achieve their goals and yes it is the most damning quote.  It isn't possible to make a value decision on any issue if certain facts are not available to the decision makers.  I don't believe it is the government lying to itself but rather a group within that is doing so.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 543,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,495
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2508 on: May 07, 2019, 13:55:18 »
What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?

My understanding: It means that the options to be examined and developed within the MC changed from the first draft to the final product that would have been seen, reviewed and approved.

For example, if planning a party in a park in Ottawa, potential options are: buy beer in Ottawa; buy beer in Gatineau; or have no beer at all.  Before going final on the document, you may be directed that the "no beer at all" option is not to be considered.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Online Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 252,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,122
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2509 on: May 07, 2019, 21:13:35 »
By the time that a jet fighter has been decided on Hyperspace will have been discovered. FFS this is effing retarded.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 586,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,512
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2510 on: May 08, 2019, 07:35:03 »
For example, if planning a party in a park in Ottawa, potential options are: buy beer in Ottawa; buy beer in Gatineau; or have no beer at all.  Before going final on the document, you may be directed that the "no beer at all" option is not to be considered.
Gee, would that be a metaphor for "Lockheed Martin" is "no beer"?   ;)

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2511 on: May 08, 2019, 12:18:31 »
Quote
U.S. government again urges Canada to acquire American fighter jets, despite Pentagon threats

The American government is once again urging Canada to acquire U.S.-built fighter jets to replace its fleet of CF-18s, one day after it emerged the Pentagon recently threatened to pull the F-35 out of the $26-billion competition for new aircraft.

The contradictory messages from the U.S. government showcase how the Americans are trying to prevent a tendering process that would favour European manufacturers at the expense of either the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the Boeing Super Hornet.

The Canadian government is weeks away from launching a competition for 88 new fighter jets, with the two American firms set to enter into a competition against the Swedish Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium that includes Airbus.

In a statement on Tuesday, the American government called on Canada to make sure its fighter jets can operate alongside U.S. military aircraft around the world. The “crucial” point, according to the American government, is Canada’s participation in the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) that controls the Canadian and American airspace.

Only U.S.-built fighter jets currently operate in NORAD and European aircraft would face technological hurdles in gaining the ability to fully integrate into the bi-national military alliance.

“We continue to believe in the importance of NATO and NORAD interoperability as a crucial component of Canada’s acquisition of defence assets,” said Joseph Crook, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

Mr. Crook added the American government remains “hopeful that U.S. firms are able to participate in open and transparent competition processes that can support Canada’s NATO and NORAD obligations, especially when it comes to co-operative engagement capabilities.”

On Monday, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published letters from American officials who warned their Canadian counterparts last year that the F-35 might be pulled from the competition unless Canada’s requirements for industrial benefits were modified.

The American government is concerned about Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy, which requires the winner of the contract to invest the equivalent of the acquisition cost in Canada.

Built by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is a stealth aircraft developed by an international consortium of allied militaries under a program that specifically rejects the application of traditional industrial benefits. Canada has been a member of the program since 2006.

In an interview after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said he has sought to reassure the Americans by pointing out that the Canadian government will focus mostly on technical capabilities in deciding which aircraft to purchase.

“First of all, the capabilities of the aircraft is the number one priority. Making sure we meet the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces – the Air Force in this particular case – is the number one priority. We will always make sure that will happen,” Mr. Sajjan said.

He added that obtaining benefits for the Canadian economy is also important, while suggesting the matter will have less importance in the final weighting of the bids.

“This obviously factors into the equation, but the capability requirements for the Canadian Armed Forces is always the number one priority,” he said.

In a speech laying out his foreign-affairs policy on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he will seek to modernize the NORAD alliance if his party forms the next government, including through the purchase of fighter jets that can defend North America alongside the U.S. fleet.

“I will act to select a new fighter jet through an open competition and make sure the new jets are interoperable with our American allies,” Mr. Scheer said.

Vice-Admiral Mathias Winter of the U.S. Navy said in a letter last December that Canada has received US$1.3-billion in economic benefits from its participation in the F-35 program to this point.

“The F-35 supplier team will submit an F-35 offer only if (1) the ITB requirement is waived entirely and (2) there is no future ITB obligation arising from selecting the F-35,” Vice-Adm. Winter said in his letter.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-us-government-urges-canada-to-acquire-american-fighter-jets-in-2/

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2512 on: May 09, 2019, 16:09:48 »
Start of good piece (lots of further links) on F-35 benefits mess:

Quote
Canada's CF-18 Replacement Competition Structure Seems To Have Already Disqualified The F-35
The country's requirements for its new fighter jet competition are at odds with its existing obligations to the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Canada is hoping to finally issue its new request for bids on a contract to supply the Royal Canadian Air Force with 88 new fighter jets to replace that service’s aging CF-18A/B Hornets later this month. The county’s fighter jet replacement plans turned into a saga long ago that has now lasted more than a decade, but the new plan looks set to create even more problems and controversy. A specific requirement regarding industrial offsets in the request could force Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of the running from the start for the somewhat obtuse reason that Canada is already, technically, a member of that program.

The Canadian government issued a draft request for proposals in October 2018. The country subsequently “pre-qualified” four planes as potential competitors for the deal, worth approximately $14 billion. These were the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin's F-35, and the Saab Gripen.

As part of this pre-qualification process, Canadian authorities had reached out to the U.S. military’s F-35 Joint Program Office, which manages international cooperation on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) with Lockheed Martin, to clarify various points ahead of the competition. The main issue centers on the extent of Canada’s continued obligations under what is known as the JSF Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding.

To rewind quickly, Canada has been a member of the F-35 program from the very beginning, but initially only as a so-called “Level 3” industrial partner without a firm commitment to buy any actual aircraft. This helped Canadian firms secure dozens of contracts related to the Joint Strike Fighter’s development and production, which, to date, have been worth a combined total of more than $1.3 billion. It also means that Canadian companies remain eligible to bid on F-35-related contracts throughout the service life of the aircraft...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27895/canada-wont-be-able-to-buy-the-f-35-because-they-are-already-a-f-35-program-partner-huh

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2513 on: May 09, 2019, 16:37:10 »
Never going to happen, but if I were King for the day I'd:

a) Revise the requirements for the replacement fighter program to be specifically tailored to the NORAD role with a purchase quantity of 65 aircraft (2 x squadrons of 24 with spares?):
- Long Range
- Supercruise capability???
- Large Air-to-Air weapon loadout
- Interoperability with our NORAD partner
- And just because it's bound to happen anyway...Industrial Offsets
- Take the winning bid based on an open and fair competition.

b) As part of the F-35 Consortium purchase 35 x F-35s (1 x squadron of 24 aircraft plus spares?) on a sole source contract for our Expeditionary requirements.
- Justification for the sole source would be the stealth capability and 5th Generation requirements that no other aircraft offer for operations in contested airspace.

The purchase of the F-35 would be through the Consortium so no additional industrial offsets required so Lockheed-Martin's objections on that point disappear.
The NORAD fighter purchase would follow the standard procurement process/mess and a fair competition could come up with a winner that can't complain about specs being tailored to the F-35. 
Boeing would be happy as likely one of their aircraft (Super Hornet or F-15X?) would likely win due to the NORAD partner interoperability requirement. 
That same requirement could limit the ability for Saab, Eurofighter (or Dassault if they chose to participate) to launch lawsuits if they lose the contest if they can't prove they meet the requirement.

[Fantasy/off]


Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2514 on: May 09, 2019, 16:45:19 »
may  be fantasy but it is a good idea.  One size doesn't fit all, particularly with the distances in the north and the cost per hour of the F35.  Yes it would require 2 sets of spares and training but we've been there before F104 and F101 come to mind. Two jobs, two airplanes

Offline HB_Pencil

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 257
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2515 on: May 09, 2019, 17:26:25 »
Never going to happen, but if I were King for the day I'd:

a) Revise the requirements for the replacement fighter program to be specifically tailored to the NORAD role with a purchase quantity of 65 aircraft (2 x squadrons of 24 with spares?):
- Long Range
- Supercruise capability???
- Large Air-to-Air weapon loadout
- Interoperability with our NORAD partner
- And just because it's bound to happen anyway...Industrial Offsets
- Take the winning bid based on an open and fair competition.

b) As part of the F-35 Consortium purchase 35 x F-35s (1 x squadron of 24 aircraft plus spares?) on a sole source contract for our Expeditionary requirements.
- Justification for the sole source would be the stealth capability and 5th Generation requirements that no other aircraft offer for operations in contested airspace.

The purchase of the F-35 would be through the Consortium so no additional industrial offsets required so Lockheed-Martin's objections on that point disappear.
The NORAD fighter purchase would follow the standard procurement process/mess and a fair competition could come up with a winner that can't complain about specs being tailored to the F-35. 
Boeing would be happy as likely one of their aircraft (Super Hornet or F-15X?) would likely win due to the NORAD partner interoperability requirement. 
That same requirement could limit the ability for Saab, Eurofighter (or Dassault if they chose to participate) to launch lawsuits if they lose the contest if they can't prove they meet the requirement.

[Fantasy/off]

According to that suggestion, the F-35 would win competition A purely on capability and cost, even without the sunk cost advantages it would get from having B.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2516 on: May 09, 2019, 17:33:07 »
According to that suggestion, the F-35 would win competition A purely on capability and cost, even without the sunk cost advantages it would get from having B.

Perhaps, but if they determine things like long range and weapon load-out to be heavily weighted factors in the competition then the F-35 might not win.  Also, if industrial offsets were included in the bid then the F-35 wouldn't even be submitted based on what they are already saying about the current competition.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2517 on: May 09, 2019, 17:51:28 »
It's actually a doable plan, although I suspect we end up with about 35 of each as the 30% markup on the non-F35 will bite. 2 aircraft types means more training, but the option to work/fly brand new aircraft might help recruitment and retention

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2518 on: May 09, 2019, 19:54:08 »
For anybody who skipped Reply 2485 of this thread at https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120786.msg1569208.html#msg1569208, I'd suggest having a read-through of the link, https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/, contained therein:

"In general, the performance of the F-35A is referred to whenever "the F-35" is discussed, because it will be by far the most produced variant. However, it's useful to compare it with the other F-35 variants.

"From all of these sources, a clear picture emerges: The Rafale has a somewhat longer air-to-air combat radius, at around 900 nm. The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) all have an air-to-air combat radius of around 750-800 nm.

"However, there are two significant caveats to this. The first is the extent to which these "maximum range" configurations affect each fighter's maneuverability. All fighters except for the F-35 rely on multiple external fuel tanks to reach those ranges. These fuel tanks and their pylons add weight as well as additional drag. For example, for the Super Hornet, those 3 480-gallon external fuel tanks enable it to carry an additional 9792 lb of fuel to augment its 14,000 lb of internal fuel, but they weigh an additional 1143 lb for the tanks themselves and an additional 883 lb for the pylons according to the flight manual, so roughly 20% of the fuel weight. I don't know what the specs are for the other planes, so I will assume the fuel tanks make up 11% and the pylons make up 9% for the other planes. The Rafale carries 3 2000 L tanks, while the Typhoon carries 3 1000 L tanks, and the Gripen E carries 2 450 gal tanks and a 300 gal tank. Granted, some will say that the drop tanks can be dropped in the event of combat, however, this isn't standard procedure except in the event of an emergency, plus the pylons continue to stay on the plane (the tanks impart much more drag than the pylons though)."

See also the various range charts in that article. The "range advantage" is not what you think that it might be. Please tell me how you think that acquiring a mixed fleet, for all of the additional costs, is worthwhile, especially when doing so would also sacrifice the networking capabilities of F35.

We had mixed fleets in the past (CF5, CF101, and CF104). Each fleet had its own training Squadron (for aircrew and groundcrew) and parts stocks. There is no need to repeat that.

We were a much bigger CF back then, with way more aircraft in total, and way more fleets. We no longer have that budget.

Pick the best one, and "best" includes interoperability.

We've already paid into the F35 programme, and continue to do so. Canadian companies have seen, I believe, $1.3B worth of work to date, we've not bought a single one yet, and there are a couple more thousand yet to be built.

From https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html Canadian Industrial Participation in The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program:

"The IRB Policy is one of the primary ways in which the Government of Canada ensures that defence and security procurements generate high value-added business activity for Canadian industry. As such, the decision to sign the PSFD MOU and the resulting implications of limiting future options with respect to IRB Policy, should the Government of Canada ultimately acquire the F-35, were considered. However, from an industrial participation standpoint, the Government of Canada had reason to believe that Canada's aerospace industry had – and still has – the strength to compete and benefit significantly from participation in the F-35 JSF Program. Canada's aerospace industry is among the most mature internationally and ranks fifth in the world in terms of its size (and third within the F-35 JSF partnership). Approximately 80 percent of what it produces is exported and companies in Canada have well recognized niche strengths and are major players in their respective markets. Canada's proximity to the U.S. and long experience in working with U.S. suppliers were also seen as advantages to companies in Canada vis-à-vis companies in other F-35 JSF partner nations. Agreeing to sign the PSFD MOU therefore had two benefits from an industrial perspective:

"In the short-to medium-term, it gave companies in Canada on-going access to valuable development and early production work on this new high-tech aircraft, even without a decision to acquire it; and
"It positioned companies in Canada for significant work on the production and sustainment of a global fleet of modern fighter aircraft, in the event that Canada did decide to acquire the F-35."

and

"C. Canadian F-35 JSF Industrial Participation Results

"1. Contracts

"Companies in Canada have thus far participated in the design/development and early production phases of the F-35 JSF Program. Seventy-two (72) companies in Canada have secured $438 million U.S. Dollars (USD) in contracts; this represents signed and executed orders for work related to the planes ordered as of June/July 2012 reporting. This is work across a range of aerospace subsectors, including airframe, propulsion, tooling, software and mission systems, which would not have been available to our industry if Canada were not a partner in the F-35 JSF Program. A selection of the companies in Canada involved in production of the F-35 JSF can be found in Annex A.

From https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/canada/documents/PwC_Economic_Impact_Study_of_Canada.pdf Lockheed Martin Study of Economic Impact in Canada April 2018:

"In 2002, Canada became one of the original nine program partners. Since then, more than 110 Canadian suppliers have been involved, and the total value of contracts to these suppliers has exceeded $1 billion (assumed to be USD - Loachman), which has supported the creation of $889 million in GDP and 9,500 jobs."

"F-35 Lightning II: Quick Facts
- Over 280 delivered worldwide
- 110 Canadian suppliers involved over the course of the program
- $2.3 million USD in Canadian components on every jet
- $889 million in Canadian GDP supported to date"

There are going to be some rightfully pissed-off companies if those contracts end for no other reason than Liberal votes.

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 50,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 542
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2519 on: May 09, 2019, 21:06:00 »
Quote
Federal government looks to ease requirements for fighter-jet makers after U.S. complaints

Ottawa will now allow bids that do not promise to re-invest into Canada

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

Posted: May 09, 2019

The federal government is planning to loosen its industrial requirements for fighter-jet makers in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s.

The planned modification follows recent U.S. complaints that the previous criteria violated Canada's obligations as one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, one of the small handful of planes expected in the competition.

Yet the proposed change has sparked complaints from some of the companies whose planes will be competing against the F-35, who say the new approach goes too far in the other direction.

Canada has long required companies bidding on major defence contracts to commit to re-investing back into the country, with those unable to make such a contractual commitment seeing their bids tossed out.

But in a presentation to companies on Thursday, the government said it plans to allow bids missing such a commitment in the fighter-jet competition — they will be just docked points in the assessment.

The plan is intended to maximize the number of bids in the competition to buy 88 new jets while still aiming for the largest-possible economic spinoffs, a senior government official told The Canadian Press.

The U.S. had threatened not to enter the F-35 into the competition if the requirement wasn't changed, noting that under the partnership agreement signed in 2006, companies in each member country instead compete for work.

The threat was contained in a letter sent to the government from the head of the Pentagon's F-35 office in December and published in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank on Monday.


Industrial targets

Canada has contributed roughly $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, while Canadian companies have won nearly $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the stealth fighter. Canada will also be able to buy the plane for less than non-members.

The proposed new process will see the government evaluate bids on a scale, with 60 per cent of the points based on the plane's capability, 20 per cent on its full lifetime costs and the remaining 20 per cent on industrial benefits to Canada.

Bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get all 20 points - which is the likely approach for Boeing's Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon and Saab's Gripen.

But those that can't make such a commitment will be asked to establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.

The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.

The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin's competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can't guarantee re-investment back into Canada.

There are also concerns about how the government will decide how risky plans to achieve "industrial targets" actually are, with one industry source saying that question is entirely subjective.

Bidders were also told Thursday that the actual launch of the competition has been delayed until mid-July. Government officials had previously said they hoped the starting gun would be fired by the end of the month.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-rule-change-1.5130470

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-look-to-ease-requirements-for-fighter-jet-makers-after-u-s-complaints-1.4416420
Recruiting Centre: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018
OFP: December 2019

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2520 on: May 09, 2019, 21:20:47 »
In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission. 

As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then maybe the money could be found to fund such an idea.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,991
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2521 on: May 09, 2019, 21:37:47 »
Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2522 on: May 09, 2019, 21:42:02 »
Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.

You may be right, but I'd imagine they would rather pitch the F-15X and get the contract rather than not get any sales at all if they thought the competition requirements might favour something other than the Super Hornet. 

It's all just a mind game anyway because as I said at the start of my post...it's never going to happen anyway.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,350
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2523 on: May 09, 2019, 22:11:35 »
In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission. 

As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then maybe the money could be found to fund such an idea.


Or maybe if we didmt have 3 times the required generals and flag officers, wasted money on buttons, bows, patches, and didnt have dozens of project offices moving at snails pace justifying peoples jobs money could be found to be reinvested in all elements.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2524 on: May 09, 2019, 23:07:28 »
My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected, Canada is going to be told to poop or get off the pot in regards to the F-35, which means if we don't, those current contracts will be wound down and we will be excluded from them, unless something extraordinary happens.