The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[jmt18325]

From the Times Colonist:

Good luck getting invited into coalition operations if the other fighters in the coalition are F-22/F-35s.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-super-hornet-wrong-choice-to-replace-aging-planes-1.4471153

Another absolute garbage article.  The US Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet, and several alliance members will operate non stealth aircraft, including France.

 

[jmt18325]

"Interim" Super Hornets--what legislation says:

Mark
Ottawa

That's why it has to be leased - just as with the Asterix.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's why it has to be leased - just as with the Asterix.

Here's where you're completely wrong. We don't have to lease anything. Boeing isn't going to build planes just to lease them out unless its for far more than they'd make selling them outright. USN/USMC aren't going to give up aircraft to us because they need them to fulfill their missions. Who else has extra Super Hornets just lying around for someone to lease? Nobody. So now we have to buy them, which means aircraft will take likely 3-4 years to start rolling off production lines because there's lots of other people in the queue (we're behind Kuwait as the last planes off the line in the early 2020s).

You're desperately trying to justify a situated estimate of "buy Super Hornets". The government could have announced a flyoff to be conducted in 2017 with contract award early 2018 which gets us the full replacement plane (whatever it is) arriving exactly when our interim planes start showing up (if they even show up at all). There was absolutely no analysis done by the government as to how or when they could get these magical Super Hornets before they made the announcement. Its a political announcement to serve a political promise based on desperate lobbying from Boeing to save their production line an extra few years. You didn't see Rafale or Saab popping up with massive lobbying efforts like Boeing because they're completely comfortable waiting for the actual competition that's been punted (again) by this government due to their unrealistic political promise in the campaign.

 

[Loachman]

Another absolute garbage article.

... by somebody with a little bit of background to base his statements upon.

Whose opinion to take seriously, whose opinion to take seriously...

The US Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet, and several alliance members will operate non stealth aircraft, including France.

The US Navy will have options, depending upon the conflict(s) at hand. We would not, and too much money would have been wasted.

I am concerned about OUR situation, not the US Navy's, nor France's.

Both of them tend to tailor their needs to actual reality, however, unlike the clueless Sun King.

And no mention of leasing has been made by this government.

 

[Kirkhill]

All a bunch of crap anyway.

If the Statement of Requirement is the driving document then all that is necessary, if the outcome is not that desired, is to change the Statement of Requirement.  It is nothing more than a set of assumptions. As assumptions they are always capable of being challenged.  My assumptions will not be yours. 

Politicians love the concept, especially when wedded to the "Alice in Wonderland" concept of "words meaning "just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.""

You can chase the mulberry bush forever.

I note that Mr. Williams proclaims that:

Generally, competition benefits everyone. Men and women in the military benefit from the “best” that the marketplace has to offer; taxpayers benefit as competition requires contenders to “sharpen their pencils” to get orders. Canadian industry gains by having the opportunity to team with various prime contractors to deliver their industrial regional commitments; and finally, ministers are able to blunt attacks on their integrity or allegations of political interference....

For officials working in the system, it is gratifying to know that their efforts will not be discarded because of political considerations. If a politically-guided system were the reality, discussions between the bureaucrats and industry become redundant – after all, why would industry waste time and money working with bureaucrats if politicians can overrule the official recommendations? In such a scenario, industry would quite rightly devote the bulk of its efforts to lobbying and influencing ministers.

Reassuringly however, the current legal framework creates confidence within the industrial sector, as it assures that success or failure will be determined solely on the quality of each bid.

I am gratified that the bureaucrats are gratified, even justified. 

I am filled with joy that industry is confident in the system (although that might be at variance with industry's lack of desire to offer product for consideration and challenging final decisions).

I might, however, challenge the assertion that the military benefits from the best the market can offer .....



By the way, does anybody have any insight into what Alan Williams was working on in 1993 and 94 when this Agreement on Internal Trade he is touting was drafted?  1993 - The year Chretien came to power and cancelled the EH-101.

PS - there is merit in leasing, as a temporary, expedient, even interim measure, to determine if a piece of kit suits your needs.  In fact leasing a squadron of F35s to operate out of US airfields, would be an excellent way to verify their suitability for Canadian missions.

 

[Journeyman]

... by somebody with a little bit of an extensive background to base his statements upon.

The subtlety might be too.....subtle.  Not that it will matter.

 

[RaceAddict]

Is this the same Alan Williams that said:

The military has to know and has to be told... that their job is to define requirements for equipment needs and it's the government's job to hold an open, fair tender and pick the winner. And that's it.

I have no doubt the air force wants the F-35. I can understand that. I have no doubt the air force wanted the C-27J. I can understand that, too.

But that's why it's incumbent on the assistant deputy minister of materiel, the deputy minister and the minister to safeguard the process and protect the military — actually — from themselves.

How reassuring to know that people in suits sitting comfortably in offices are there to "protect" those that serve and put their lives on the line.

 

[jmt18325]

Here's where you're completely wrong. We don't have to lease anything. Boeing isn't going to build planes just to lease them out unless its for far more than they'd make selling them outright. USN/USMC aren't going to give up aircraft to us because they need them to fulfill their missions. Who else has extra Super Hornets just lying around for someone to lease? Nobody.

Where did I say that?  You went off on a long tangent that had nothing to do with what I said.  The purchase must be organized as a lease to comply with the rules that the Conservatives created to lease the Asterix.

You're desperately trying to justify a situated estimate of "buy Super Hornets". The government could have announced a flyoff to be conducted in 2017 with contract award early 2018

On what planet would you think that Canadian defence procurement could move that fast?  It never has, and it never will, it seems.

Also - I haven't really defended this at all.

 

[jmt18325]

... by somebody with a little bit of background to base his statements upon.

Whose opinion to take seriously, whose opinion to take seriously...

Not like he has an agenda, or anything.

The US Navy will have options, depending upon the conflict(s) at hand. We would not, and too much money would have been wasted.

What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?

That's what I thought.

I am concerned about OUR situation, not the US Navy's, nor France's.

I'm concerned about dealing in reality.

Both of them tend to tailor their needs to actual reality, however, unlike the clueless Sun King.

And yet they, like the 'sun king' will be operating non stealth (less stealthy, anyway) aircraft.

And no mention of leasing has been made by this government.

That was the original talk, but it seems that it's changed:


The government press release doesn't use the words "purchase" or "buy", saying they will be used "for an interim period of time". That leaves open the possibility the jets will be leased from Boeing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24012/canada-f-18-order/

-----

Canada intends to buy the 18 Super Hornets outright, as opposed to leasing them or purchasing them with a buyback provision, a source familiar with the matter said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/quebec-aerospace-industry-expects-benefits-from-boeing-deal/article33023076/

----

They must have somehow found a way to change the regulations governing emergency procurement.

 

[Good2Golf]

But why would they want that old outdated thing?

Because congressional and senate-approved appropriation bills only allow a portion of total requirements to be fulfilled over time, so like Loachman say, they get thing (even ships) in 'flights'...there were still 1960's-vintage A-7 Corsair IIs flying in the USN for a decade+ (retired 1991) while the shiny new F/A-18s were coming into service.

To specifically answer your inadvertently insightful question above, "because the RCAF does not want to mothball 77 CF-188s right now..."

 

[Loachman]

Not like he has an agenda, or anything.

Which would be what? Buying the best possible aircraft to do the job that we need, without dicking various people around (like those that will entrust their lives and Nation with it, and those who will pay for it)?

What, on the other hand, is the Liberals' agenda? Weaselling out of a stupid, illogical campaign promise? Anything actually worthy?

(Sorry, Mustela nivalis - that was unfair to you and I apologize to you all.)

What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?

Irrelevant.

We are buying an aircraft for the FUTURE, not the past.

I'm concerned about dealing in reality.

So am I - not Liberal fantasies and frenzied spinning.

And yet they, like the 'sun king' will be operating non stealth (less stealthy, anyway) aircraft.

He won't be operating anything much more complicated than the camera on his selfiephone.

"They" are not "us".

And the US Navy will have F35 operational before we have the obsolescent Super Hornet. We cannot afford a mixed fleet. They can.

They must have somehow found a way to change the regulations governing emergency procurement.

They're not that smart. They've just been caught in another lie.

I still respect the MND for his military record. His political record, as brief as it has been, not so much. It is painful to see him this way.

 

[Kirkhill]

MERX ULCV

RFI Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) (W6399-16HB11/A)

 

Published 2015-08-26
Revised
Closing 2015-09-28 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT

Aug 12 2016

http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/

This week’s call for tender comes just under a year after an initial request for information, which went out last August, and the first 52 vehicles are expected to be delivered by Nov. 15, 2017.

Dec 15 2016

Rumours of order according to source who must not be named 

To summarize

One month to gather info
11 months to prepare request for tender
4 months to receive and review tenders and issue order.

 

[Loachman]

And there is likely not much more info to gather on the various fighter contenders, so the selection and contract should happen in just over a year...

 

[HB_Pencil]

Not like he has an agenda, or anything.

What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?

That's what I thought.

Operation Reassurance.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/navy/2015fa18ef.pdf

Key line:

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system continues to demonstrate operational effectiveness for most threat environments; however, the platform is not operationally effective in specific threat environments, which are detailed in previous DOT&E classified reports.

I wonder if the most difficult operational environment in the world, where Canadian forces are squared off against numerous batteries of S-300 and 400 Air defence systems, Su-35s and Mig-31s would qualify?

Enjoy eating crow.

 

[jmt18325]

Which would be what? Buying the best possible aircraft to do the job that we need, without dicking various people around (like those that will entrust their lives and Nation with it, and those who will pay for it)?

Everyone has an agenda.  His apparently involves misleading articles.

What, on the other hand, is the Liberals' agenda? Weaselling out of a stupid, illogical campaign promise?

Yes - something I've said all along about this particular file. 

Wea re buying an aircraft for the FUTURE, not the past.

We're buying an aircraft for our foreseeable use.

He won't be operating anything much more complicated than the camera on his selfiephone.

He's the Prime Minister of Canada.  He has people to do that for him.

"They" are not "us".

And their requirements are obviously less than ours.  Right?

And the US Navy will have F35 operational before we have the obsolescent Super Hornet. We cannot afford a mixed fleet. They can.

And then they'll buy more Super Hornets.  Do you think we operate in a more dangerous environment than the US Navy?

They're not that smart. They've just been caught in another lie.

That's the difference between you and I - I realize that no matter who is in power, there are generally smart and knowledgeable people running the show.

 

[jmt18325]

Operation Reassurance.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/navy/2015fa18ef.pdf

Key line:

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system continues to demonstrate operational effectiveness for most threat environments; however, the platform is not operationally effective in specific threat environments, which are detailed in previous DOT&E classified reports.

How many planes did we lose? 

The F-35 is better.  I freely admit that.  I haven't said any different, and won't say any different.

For our uses, there's no evidence the Super Hornet isn't good enough.

 

[jmt18325]

MERX ULCV
 


Aug 12 2016

http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/

Dec 15 2016

Rumours of order according to source who must not be named 

To summarize

One month to gather info
11 months to prepare request for tender
4 months to receive and review tenders and issue order.

That's a $20M procurement.  Look to the FWSAR (worth almost $4B) or even the CATS program (worth $1.5B) for how this is more likely to go.

 

[HB_Pencil]

How many planes did we lose?

So if we send troops to a situation with inadequate equipment and because nobody died, that makes it okay?

Its quite obvious you're just reaching for whatever thin logic you can find to justify this decision. The sad truth is that this government is doing the exact same thing.

 

[jmt18325]

So if we send troops to a situation with inadequate equipment and because nobody died, that makes it okay?

Its quite obvious you're just reaching for whatever thin logic you can find to justify this decision. The sad truth is that this government is doing the exact same thing.

I'm against the procurement of Super Hornets. I understand she reasoning and reject the hyperbolic arguments.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's a $20M procurement.  Look to the FWSAR (worth almost $4B) or even the CATS program (worth $1.5B) for how this is more likely to go.

According to PSPC anything over $100K is treated the same.