Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 870837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2525 on: May 09, 2019, 23:31:07 »
Canadian companies have won nearly $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the stealth fighter

Bingo!

I am hugely surprised by a Liberal attempt to do it right and acknowledge the money spent in Canada to date, but I don't know if an equitable method can be found to balance two different methods of calculating industrial benefits.

I anticipate legal challenges from all losing bidders no matter what.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 308,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,009
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2526 on: May 09, 2019, 23:33:58 »
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.

Like if Trudeau gets the boot by a Conservative government?
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2527 on: May 09, 2019, 23:40:55 »
the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

I would suspect with external fuel like the others.

pare(d) down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies

The Army is already a smaller, under-equipped expeditionary force. It can't afford any more smallness and under-equippedness. Reforms to the Reserve structure, manning, and equipment have been promised as long as I remember, and I joined in 1973. If it can't be done in forty-six years, I can't see it being done in another or more. Governments always talk big and act small.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2528 on: May 09, 2019, 23:43:36 »
My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected

"If"? Barring something catastrophic, it's almost guaranteed.

Offline HB_Pencil

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 257
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2529 on: May 10, 2019, 10:45:54 »
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.


So while I agree with your conclusion, the numbers cited by Vanshillar are incorrect. The Super Hornet, even with three tanks, does not outrange the F-35. the only way that this is plausibly possible is if you drop tanks in flight, which is not an option. A quick check of the NATOPS, which were leaked a few years ago can give you that number. Five tanks doesn't actually get you any further because of the drag imposed.

Having spoken to previous members of the NGFC program about this very topic, in all functional respects the F-35 had the most range, and was the only one (with the possible exception of the Typhoon) that could meet what they described as the holy grail mission: the Cold Lake -> Inuvik -> Eielson Weather diversion flightplan. Public numbers on the Rafale and Gripen are not accurate, they do not have the range close to the other options. One likened their claims to being "outside the laws of physics." This was one of the reasons why they were eager to get the F-35 in the first place. Several of them had operated in the north for over a decade, and brought their person experiences to the table when designing the RFPs. They were unequivocal that no other plane was better suited to operate in the north than the F-35. Now the F-15 wasn't an option back then, but I don't think its superior range would tip the scales too much. One: while more fuel capacity is always welcome, anything above the Cold Lake/Eielson profile has less value. Second, the original RFP had the ability to take off and land in no-light conditions as a result of crashes in the 1990s: the F-35 has that ability, the F-15 does not. Thirdly, the drag chute option provides the RCAF a lot more options in the north for FOLs.

Finally as you point out, the networking capabilities are exceptionally valuable. They found that two F-35s could search four times the area as a 4th Generation fighter can because of the sensor fusion system, particularly in the north. Any notational advantage another platform may have is obviated at that point.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2530 on: May 10, 2019, 10:56:11 »
Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:

Quote
Ottawa changes fighter-jet tender rules to address U.S. pressure over F-35

The federal government is opening up the acquisition process for its $26-billion contract for new fighter jets, responding to threats from the U.S. government that it would refuse to sell the stealth Lockheed Martin F-35 unless Ottawa scrapped its quota for aerospace spending.

The changes to the process were presented to potential bidders this week, after it emerged the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition if the requirement for industrial benefits was not modified.

Under the new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition, said federal and industry sources to whom The Globe and Mail granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Before the changes were approved by the federal cabinet, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn’t allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits. Instead, the F-35 program awards production contracts on a competitive basis in partner countries, without any formal guarantees of investments in those countries...

In the first version of the draft RFP, the government assigned 60 per cent of the points for technological capabilities; 25 per cent for cost; and 15 per cent for industrial benefits.

Under the new process, the government has kept a value of 60 per cent for technical requirements, but gave a value of 20 per cent for cost and 20 per cent for industrial benefits
[emphasis added].

The new 60-20-20 formula means that the package of industrial benefits will be given more weight in the final evaluation of the bids than what had been originally contemplated. As such, the government will be giving more points to companies that commit to spending the entire value of the program in Canada, while allowing companies that offer a different type of benefits package to remain in the race...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-changes-fighter-jet-tender-rules-to-address-us-threats-over-f/

Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 13:50:57 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2531 on: May 10, 2019, 16:10:38 »
More, LM could get some of those benefits points--if US willing to go through the bother of competing when our gov't doing its best to stack the deck against F-35A:
Quote
Canada looks to loosen requirements for fighter-jet makers in competition to replace CF-18s
...
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...

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.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/

FUBAR.

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

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 208,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,088
  • Living the staff life
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2532 on: May 10, 2019, 16:36:45 »
Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:

Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?

I had to read your comment a few times - I thought you had meant that LM would get their score out of 80 v 100, which would be advantageous to them.
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2533 on: May 10, 2019, 16:52:01 »
No, that they would getting points out of a maximum of 80 whereas others would be getting from 100. Now looks like LM might have chance to get some of those benefits points--but will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition:
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120786.msg1571296.html#msg1571296

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

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 272
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2534 on: May 10, 2019, 17:26:25 »
will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition
I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 4,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 77
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2535 on: May 10, 2019, 18:23:44 »
I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Or that Airbus did Canada as solid, and they will be rewarded. It’’s likely that MBDA will also benefit.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 308,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,009
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2536 on: May 10, 2019, 18:42:40 »
Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning? 

That's what we consultants do... in our world, it's called 'work' :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,234
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2537 on: May 10, 2019, 19:15:56 »
I wonder, have F35s for Turkey started production yet? Given the current politucal spat maybe Lockmart will offer a Que jump and take Turkeys spot allowing for faster delivery
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2538 on: May 10, 2019, 19:46:33 »
Looks like US, with quite some justification (indeed provocation from Justin's gov't) to play serious hard ball:
Quote
New Canadian fighter jets will need U.S. certification: DND

American officials will need to certify the fighter jet Canada buys at the end of a multibillion-dollar procurement that’s started and stopped and started again for more than a decade, ensuring that it’s fit to plug into the U.S.’s highest-security intelligence systems.

But, says the Department of National Defence’s top procurement official, they will not get to decide which plane replaces Canadian military’s aging CF-18s.

“Ultimately when we select, when we are into the detailed design, at some point, yes, the U.S. will have a role to play in ultimate certification,” Patrick Finn, the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel, told The Canadian Press.

“But the Americans won’t be sitting with us with the evaluation and doing that type of work. It will be us.”

Some industry sources are nonetheless worried the U.S. could use the certification requirement to block Canada from choosing a non-American plane, particularly given the Trump administration’s approach to trade.

The federal government this week laid out the latest iteration of its plan for the $19-billion competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s with 88 new fighters, which is expected to officially launch in July.

While much of the presentation delivered to fighter-jet makers focused on a loosening of industrial-benefit rules (that is, how much the winning bidder will be expected to spend on work and production in Canada), the government also revealed that companies will be asked to show how they plan to meet certain security requirements.

Specifically, companies will have until September to explain how they plan to ensure their aircraft can comply with the standards required for handling top-secret intelligence from two security networks in which Canada takes part, called “Five Eyes” and “Two Eyes.”

The “Five Eyes” network comprises Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. “Two Eyes” is just Canada and the U.S. and is essential for co-operating in the defence of North America.

Meeting those requirements will pose different challenges for the four plane models that are expected to square off to replace the CF-18s, with the U.S.-made Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing Super Hornet already fully compliant.

The other two expected competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, will face a tougher time. The Typhoon, which is used by the British military, already meets Five-Eyes requirements, but neither it nor the Swedish-made Gripen meets the Two-Eyes standard [emphasis added].

A U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Ottawa emphasized the importance of technological connections between U.S. and Canadian forces on Friday.

“We look forward to hearing more about Canada’s plans for replacing its current CF-18 aircraft fleet with next-generation aircraft to meet Canada’s ongoing military commitments over the coming decades,” Joseph Crook said by email. “We continue to believe in the importance of NATO and NORAD interoperability as a crucial component of Canada’s acquisition of defence assets.”

Crook said the U.S. hopes its plane manufacturers will get to compete in a fair process.

Finn acknowledged in an interview Friday that both European contenders will have some work to do.

He revealed for the first time that U.S. certification will be required before new aircraft can plug into the two security networks, but he said that will be years away and have no bearing on which plane replaces the CF-18s. He said the Canadian military has in the past bought non-U.S. equipment that needed to be modified to meet American security requirements, such as radios and sensors for ships and drones.

However, industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a federal gag order on those involved in the fighter project, say there are fears the U.S. could use the security requirements to block Canada from buying a non-American plane.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said those concerns are completely justified given the Trump administration’s penchant for using whatever means necessary to get foreign countries to buy U.S. products [I doubt this has anything specific to do with Trump--all sorts of people in US military and gov't must have had it up to...].

“Ultimately, those aircraft have to plug into American systems, so the American government is going to have play some kind of role,” he said of whatever new fighter jet Canada buys.

“And the concern the Europeans have is whether or not that effectively gives the Americans a veto over us buying their aircraft.”

While unable to rule out the risk entirely, Finn said officials in Washington have consistently said they are open to Canada buying a non-U.S. plane as long as it can meet the security requirements.

“The consistent answer we’ve gotten back is: ‘As long as you meet the criteria, over to you. And we are not going to tell you that a third-party cannot bid. We are telling you obviously it will have to meet our standards and the approach.’ ”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-new-canadian-fighter-jets-will-need-us-certification-dnd-2/

FUBAR.

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

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,949
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2539 on: May 10, 2019, 20:35:17 »
I am surprised ADM(Mat) came out and publically said the European contenders have “some work to do”.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 258,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,080
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2540 on: May 11, 2019, 20:35:13 »
Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:

Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?

Mark
Ottawa

That's not necessarily an accurate interpretation, Mark.  The case could be made that the value that Canadian aerospace industry gets from the overall share of JSF supply chain participation has de facto ITB value...especially if, as it would seem to be by public record, results in more industry revenue than governmental monies provided through JSF MOU payments.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline Iron 1

  • Guest
  • *
  • 300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2541 on: May 11, 2019, 21:15:30 »
That's not necessarily an accurate interpretation, Mark.  The case could be made that the value that Canadian aerospace industry gets from the overall share of JSF supply chain participation has de facto ITB value...especially if, as it would seem to be by public record, results in more industry revenue than governmental monies provided through JSF MOU payments.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Agreed. The potential value over the entire life of the program is an intangible, but given the close integration of our native  industries (that are already well into the program at this point) and their geographic location (relative to the main assembly point), it would be academic to assume that we will see more than enough "offsets" over the life of the program.
Also? It's safe to assume that due to the above factors, there is a rather high probability that we may see a substantial increase in sub-contracts awarded to the Canadian aviation industry...once we sign a purchase order.

Thoughts?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 258,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,080
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2542 on: May 12, 2019, 11:11:27 »
Agreed. The potential value over the entire life of the program is an intangible, but given the close integration of our native  industries (that are already well into the program at this point) and their geographic location (relative to the main assembly point), it would be academic to assume that we will see more than enough "offsets" over the life of the program.
Also? It's safe to assume that due to the above factors, there is a rather high probability that we may see a substantial increase in sub-contracts awarded to the Canadian aviation industry...once we sign a purchase order.

Thoughts?

Possibly, particularly given concerns over current major suppliers like Turkey, as it appears to include significant elements of non-NATO defence technology into it's national security infrastructure (S-400 Air Defence, etc.)

For those wondering how Canadian industry could (continue to) benefit from ongoing participation and furthermore, investment (acquisition within) the JSF program, the overall framework of Industrial Technological Benefits (ITB) and elements of them, including determination of the Value Proposition (VP) of any particular program, and its alignment with Canadian industrial Key Industrial Capability (KIC) areas, is worth a quick read.  (Ref: ISED Canada - Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy: Value Proposition Guide - Rev. 31 May 2018).

The irony is that through signing on to the JSP Program as a (Tier 3) participating nation through a succession of MOUs and providing participation funding to the Program, the Government of Canada itself has created an  Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Management Plan consistent with its very own ITB/VP Policy, to which we know numerous companies in Canada's aerospace and defence electronics sectors are participating.

Regards
G2G

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 168,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,378
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2543 on: May 13, 2019, 14:59:20 »
I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Lockheed would dearly like to keep Canada in the program as we provide reliable, high quality and nearby part supply with minimal transportation hassles. If Canada was suddenly kicked out and lost those contract, i suspect you see all sorts of part shortages for awhile and possibly higher prices (parts made with Canadian production costs will be lower than US due to currency exchange.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2544 on: May 13, 2019, 15:23:25 »
In the end getting a very capable for NORAD is all about "defence against help":

Quote
The U.S. needs to be a key part of Canada’s next-gen jet procurement process

Elinor Sloan, professor of international relations in the department of political science at Carleton University, is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

For a bid to buy a plane designed to cut quickly through the skies, Ottawa’s pursuit of a future-generation fighter jet has been a long and torturous slog.

In 1997, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, a U.S.-led initiative conceived as a new way for allies to work together to design, develop and produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. In 2006, Ottawa signed a formal memorandum of understanding that gave Canada and the other eight partner nations the exclusive right to compete for contracts to produce such aircraft and, since 2007, Canadian companies have won more than US$1.3-billion in defence contracts related to the Joint Strike Fighter. With a production line that will be operating at full capacity starting this year, and is expected to produce about 10 times as many aircraft as exist today over the next few decades, this number promises to grow substantially.

Meanwhile, Canada’s nearly 40-year-old fleet of fighter jets – the CF-18s – continues to age. In 2010, the Harper government shelved its plan to sole-source buy the Joint Strike Fighter to replace them after a public outcry and a damning auditor-general’s report that found significant weaknesses in the process used by the Department of National Defence.

Then, when the Liberals took office in 2015 and promised an open and fair competition to replace the CF-18s, it also banned the F-35 from bidding – two contradictory positions. The Trudeau government quietly dropped that ban last year, and pre-qualified four companies to bid on a contract worth at least $15-billion: Sweden’s Saab Gripen, Britain’s Airbus Eurofighter, the U.S.'s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and yes, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

According to letters released last week, though, the U.S. government threatened to pull the Lockheed Martin F-35 from consideration last year over Ottawa’s insistence that Canada receive industrial benefits from the winning bid. In response, Ottawa relaxed its requirement Thursday: where bidders once had to commit to spend 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment in Canada, bids will now only lose points in a three-category scoring system in the review process, instead.

With such exhausting twists and incompatible statements, it’s little surprise that it took three and a half years of the government’s four-year mandate just to get to the formal request-for-proposal stage.

But there is a way out of this morass: pursuing a back-to-basics focus on why we need this aircraft and what we need it to do.

To do so, we must focus the proposed jets’ promised technical capabilities, which are paramount, and rightly weighted the highest of that three-category scoring system. The second category is cost, which of course important to any government. The third is creating and sustaining a highly skilled work force within our own borders, a goal enshrined in Canada’s industrial trade benefits (ITB) policy, which requires a winning bid to guarantee it will make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract. Each bid is scored by these three categories, weighed 60-20-20, respectively.

However, the Joint Strike Fighter program, which Canada has spent millions to join, does not fit neatly into the ITB policy. In those letters last year, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin pointed out that Canada’s ITB terms are inconsistent with – and indeed prohibited by – the memorandum of understanding Canada signed in 2006, which says partners cannot impose industrial compensation measures. The solution reached on Thursday allows that memorandum to be obeyed, but since Canada will still give higher grades to bids that follow its ITB policy, questions remain as to whether the playing field has really been levelled.

All this is important because of the growing competition between the major powers. Russian bombers and fighters, for example, are increasingly testing the boundaries of Canadian and U.S. airspace. More than ever, the focus needs to be interoperability with the U.S., working together on NORAD and helping NATO allies in Europe. As a flying command-and-control platform, rather than a mere fighter, Canada’s next-generation jet must work with the U.S.'s most sophisticated systems, and include a seamless and secure communications capability – that is a critical and non-negotiable criterion. Indeed, as DND has said, the United States will need to certify the winning jet meets Washington’s security standards.

Some may question the federal government’s decision to relax the ITB rules, and to grant this certification sign-off. But whatever Canada buys must be able to address threats to us and to our allies until well into the 2060s. Our relationship with the United States, both in terms of geopolitics and military technology, is crucial. Despite our trade tête-à-tête, the United States remains our most important strategic partner. Canada can either take an active part in our own security or leave it to the United States [emphasis added].
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-us-needs-to-be-a-key-part-of-canadas-next-gen-jet-procurement/

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

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,602
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2545 on: May 14, 2019, 16:38:21 »
Say no more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadians-should-be-scandalized-by-the-liberals-fighter-jet-debacle

“Richard Shimooka: The government holds the security of its citizens in near-total disregard, and the public barely raises an eyebrow”
... Move!! ...

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 628

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,111
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2547 on: May 17, 2019, 14:03:01 »
And offering 100% benefits:

Quote
Boeing Commits to 100 Per Cent Industrial and Technological Benefits (Itb) Obligation
http://www.boeing.ca/media/news-releases/2019/may/boeing-commits-to-100-per-cent-itb-obligation.page

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

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,148
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2548 on: May 17, 2019, 14:27:23 »
Boeing bidding F-18D Block III 

https://defence-blog.com/news/boeing-offered-super-hornet-block-iii-fighters-to-canada.html

So weird question but why is there no F-15? Or perhaps more importantly why was it never part of the conversation?  What makes the F-18 so much more obvious a choice over the F-15 (which is also in the Boeing inventory).

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 531,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,235
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2549 on: May 17, 2019, 14:48:06 »
You'd have to ask Boeing why they would offer one platform over another in their inventory.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html