F-35: Sole-sourcing? And no-sourcing
Front-page (why?) headline in the Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 22:
Note the Netherlands and Norway and the F-35--years before Canada.
As for UAVs' taking over, as the list above indicates that won't happen for some time. UAVs may be fine at this point for ISR (intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance) and ground attack; but they won't replace manned aircraft for airspace patrol/control and aerial combat in the near future (that's two of the three roles of our fighters, the other being ground attack).
Which is not to say that won't happen someday--see 2) at this post--just not in any time frame relevant to Canada's next fighter, whatever the Stapler may spout.
It may well be true that efforts are afoot to sole-source the F-35; they just aren't demonstrated in the story. In any event, I do think there should be a competitive bidding process for Canada's new fighter. Depending on our Air Force's real requirements there are several possible alternatives to the F-35--and I do not see how a proper competition can be done this year.
Military favours stealthy jet to replace CF-18sRead the first two paragraphs closely--and the rest of the piece. Any source mentioned for the sole-sourcing assertion? Any real evidence at all?
Sole-source deal for Joint Strike Fighters a mistake: critics
The Defence Department is recommending a multibillion-dollar sole-source purchase of a U.S. stealth-like aircraft to replace Canada's CF-18 fighter jets.More:
Work is under way on a presentation to cabinet for approval to buy 65 Joint Strike Fighters, known as JSF, even though military leaders had earlier claimed that a competitive process would be followed in any CF-18 replacement...The Harper government has announced that its long-term defence plan would see the purchase of planes to replace the CF-18s, although it did not specify the JSF.
The first CF-18 entered service in 1984. Over the years, $1.8 billion has been spent modernizing the fleet, which is expected to be phased out between 2017 and 2020...
Officials with Lockheed Martin, the U.S. firm building the JSF, said they expect Canada to make its decision over the next 12 months...Hardly news. Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that some two months ago--post:
Deciding on the F-35 soon?The Citizen story continues:
...in May, Lockheed Martin's competitors were in Ottawa promoting their fighter planes, which they say are cheaper.But there's the following in the last paragraph of the article--one might think the related information in it would logically follow the paragraph immediately above rather than be buried at the end:
"We believe we are much less expensive than the JSF and we have industrial benefits for Canadian industry available right now," said Boeing official Glenn Erutti. Boeing is trying to interest Canada in an advanced F-18 aircraft called the Super Hornet.
BAE Systems and Saab Aerospace were also interested in offering aircraft to Canada [Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation)--see here and here]. Industry representatives are divided over the JSF; some say the program will provide major benefits for Canada's aerospace industry, but others note only a limited number of companies will see work from that contract and better benefits might be gained from a competition to replace the CF-18s...
Government officials have promoted the benefits of the JSF program [joined by the Liberal government in 2002, it's not a Conservative plot] for the country's aerospace industry. They say Canadian firms have been awarded around 150 JSF contracts, so far. Canadian industrial opportunities are expected to total more than $5 billion U.S. over the life of the JSF program, they maintain.The official position:
Defence Department spokeswoman Annie Arcand said no decision has been made by the government on the choice of a next generation fighter aircraft or on the procurement approach for that.Wow! A smoking gun--from almost three years ago. Details from an Ottawa Citizen blog post last October:
"The Department of National Defence anticipates that the next generation fighter capability project will be advanced to government in due course."..
Defence officials have always maintained that no decision has been made on whether JSF should be purchased. But a 2006 briefing report produced by the office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel, concluded that JSF was the plane best suited for Canada...
...However note this from December 2006, after the briefing mentioned above, yet not mentioned in the story:
There is also strong support for a JSF purchase within the Canadian Air Force. In May 2006 the Chief of the Air Staff completed an options analysis study that examined the future global market for next-generation tactical fighter aircraft.
“The results of this study have indicated that the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered,” according to a Sept. 19, 2006 briefing report entitled JSF Program. The report was prepared for then Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor by office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel...
...And then the heavy artillery is brought in:
While echoing the sentiment that preliminary evaluations of the F-35 have shown the aircraft to be the answer to its fighter requirements [emphasis added, observe the "prliminary"], Canadian defense officials are also looking at potential alternatives to the fifth-generation aircraft.
“I think that we are going to look at the full spectrum of capabilities to meet future operational requirements,” [Michael] Slack [Canada’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager] said in the interview. “If something emerges that turns out to be extremely capable, who knows? I do not have a crystal ball anymore than you do.”
Canadian defense officials are eying the 2012 time frame for a final decision on what platform, or mix of platforms, will replace the F/A -18E/F Super Hornets [well no, ours are just Hornets, not "Super" (warning: Boeing site)] that make up the majority [all] of Canada’s fighter fleet.
Production aircraft seen as possible alternatives to the JSF include the JAS 39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, along with upgraded versions of the Super Hornet, Col. Dave Burt, Canada’s director for air requirements, said in a brief Dec. 11 interview with ITAF [Inside the Air Force]...
...Rideau Institute president Steve Staples said Canada is making a mistake putting so much money into JSF when there are cheaper and just as effective fighter aircraft on the market. Lower-cost unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs are also expected to take over from fighter aircraft in the future, added Staples, whose organization has criticized what it considers the government's excessive level of defence spending.The description of St. Steve's institute is rather, er, economical in terms of informing about its position and biases. From an earlier post:
"Most forward-looking air forces realize that next generation UAVs will dominate the future so they're putting their efforts into those areas," he said...
...What a flaming hypocrite he is, what with having opposed the [Afghan] combat mission--and dismissing our efforts--for years and advocating instead than the CF focus on UN peacekeeping...The Stapler wrote this in April, 2006:As for pure propaganda pap--strangely reported at face value in the article (odd that St. Steve is the only "expert" quoted),...This is what he wrote in June 2007:
* Once a top 10 contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping, today we can fit all our Blue Helmets onto a single school bus - less than 60, out of more than 60,000 UN peacekeepers worldwide.
* Our 2,300-troop-strong effort in Afghanistan, a counterterrorism mission currently under U.S. command, is a proving ground for the adoption of U.S. war-fighting doctrine and a symbolic end to Canadian/UN peacekeeping......Then this from February 27 this year [2009]:
In a broader context, Prime Minister Harper's remarks last week may signal that the current military buildup and transformation of the Canadian Forces from peacekeepers to war fighters has reached its zenith...Why Canadians want their country to be a peacekeeping nationNow take a look at who's involved at Ceasfire.ca, a website (the name says it all) the Stapler founded and that remains dear to his, er, heart...
...
By embracing UN peacekeeping, rightly or wrongly, Canadians are expressing a rejection of aggressive U.S.-led wars. Keep the military with the UN, otherwise, many fear, our forces will simply become an adjunct of the Pentagon, serving U.S. interests.
Sadly, successive Canadian governments have abandoned UN peacekeeping to the point where we have dropped from the first to the 53rd highest contributor, next to Malawi. Today we send so few soldiers, they could all fit on a school bus (62 Canadian soldiers out of 78,000 international troops on UN peacekeeping operations).
And so, while UN involvement plummets, 2750 Canadian troops are stuck in a failing US/NATO-led war in Afghanistan. It seems to me that Canadians actually know the score very well. Now, if only our government would listen.
"Most forward-looking air forces realize that next generation UAVs will dominate the future so they're putting their efforts into those areas,"virtually all countries that make any pretence of having a decent ("forward-looking") air force are buying or will be buying new fighters; we'll just be getting ours a whole lot later--2017-20 if all goes according to plan (hah!): Russia (post yesterday by the author of the story in this post!--plus a fifth-generation fighter with likely Indian involvement), China, India, Brazil, the UK (F-35), France, Australia (F-35 and Super Hornet), Norway (F-35), the Netherlands (F-35), Japan and Italy (F-35) Germany/Italy/Spain/UK (Typhoon)...
Note the Netherlands and Norway and the F-35--years before Canada.
As for UAVs' taking over, as the list above indicates that won't happen for some time. UAVs may be fine at this point for ISR (intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance) and ground attack; but they won't replace manned aircraft for airspace patrol/control and aerial combat in the near future (that's two of the three roles of our fighters, the other being ground attack).
Which is not to say that won't happen someday--see 2) at this post--just not in any time frame relevant to Canada's next fighter, whatever the Stapler may spout.
It may well be true that efforts are afoot to sole-source the F-35; they just aren't demonstrated in the story. In any event, I do think there should be a competitive bidding process for Canada's new fighter. Depending on our Air Force's real requirements there are several possible alternatives to the F-35--and I do not see how a proper competition can be done this year.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 2:22 p.m.
9 Comments:
While the PR value of a couple of fighter squadrons is undeniable, when was the last time our fighters engaged in combat. (Please ... please don't count Kosovo.)
Unlike infantry, armour, artillery and the like, the Air Force's contributions have been relegated to transport. Their combat experience is all related to either army or navy activities ... driven by the needs of those combat arms ... and most of that has been in rotary aircraft.
Peacekeeping was a sham military sideshow, allowing the Canadian forces to man political desirable, relatively safe UN positions. Men were killed on those missions ... but the truth is that they were wussy missions for an armed force with the traditions our forces had won on the battlefield.
Peacekeeping was safe, UN-sponsored ... which alone should have been enough to put paid to it ... and a nice fit for a nation proud of the sanctuary it offered to American draft dodgers.
I'm not sure that we have a viable fighter role to offer in defense of Canada ... or for our allies. Still ... if the Aussies see something in the JSF, perhaps there is something in its performance. Frankly, again, the Super Hornet might be just as good ... although the links, there, are only with the American Navy ... and we need to stay aligned with the US Army/Air Force.
Two squadrons worth, with a training/transition unit. It doesn't seem like much, does it?
Finally, I can only think that all this tendering process serves only to bulk up some bureaucratic team. The longer it goes on, or can be stretched out, the longer its members feed at the trough.
Cynicism isn't an attitude to take pride in; when has the purchasing process for members of the Canadian Forces been something to be proud of. The Avro Arrow was probably the last time.
Regards.
Modern media thrives on innuendo and the drive by smear.
Recall the same "sole sourced" crap fest they pushed over the acquisition of the C17 ?
Why, they bleated doesn't the government consider the super wonderful A400M aircraft ? Buy them and the Euros will give us a Unicorn too !!
That was in para 1 and then only in para last -1 telling readers the plane A400 hadn't actually flown yet, couldn't "compete" in a fly off. I'm still waiting for the story about how wrong they were in flogging the A400 - it still hasn't flown yet.
The article reads like a Boeing Sales press release.
And they wonder why newspaper circulation is down, papers and stations are closing and journalists are being laid off.
They can't help themselves it seems. Suicide is painless.
Maybe we should send nice big posters of the C17 to the assorted journalists covering DND so they can hang it on their wall as a reminder.
George, unless I'm misreading you, I can't agree. Ground and naval forces rely on friendly aircover these days - if you don't own the airspace above your surface forces, you severely curtail their ability to operate.
Fighters are what determine who owns the airspace (in conjunction with other assets like AWACS, etc).
Just because we've been fighting against adversaries that couldn't compete with us in the air in the past and present (Afghanistan, etc) doesn't mean we won't have to in the future. China especially is investing heavily in updating its forces across the board. And with their volume advantage, the west really can't afford to give up technological superiority, since in the event of a fight, our guys would have to take down multiples of their own number in order to win the battle.
And remember, the only reason our current adversaries fight unconventionally is because the western powers (esp the US) maintain such a distinct advantage in the conventional arena. Lose that advantage, and all of a sudden the fight you're in changes.
Anyhow, to me fighters remain a must. And given the size of our military, our best bet to get cabinet approval is a multi-role bird that can be a jack-of-all-trades.
If the F-35 is the front-runner right now, I don't have a problem with that. Having said that, a competition is always best if you have the time to go through the exercise.
Oh .. could you send me a poster of the C-17, please!
You are so right, Fred. The specs on the A400M looked good ... but paper usually does look good.
Besides, didn't the Yanks take our six C-17s right out of the production line ... ahead of their own requirements?
Regards.
I afraid I'm rather with George on this. Excerpt from an earlier post:
'...What is more important is what a country expects the military to be prepared to do with that money, equipments and personnel. That is what this government is unwilling to try to specify.
Note the proportion of money devoted to maintaining a blue water Navy, as opposed to one focussed on coastal defence and sovereignty protection. Why does our Navy need to be engaged in the Arabian Sea interdicting rum-runners (see Update)? Or hash smugglers [or pirates]?
The answer: jobs building and repairing ships in Canada, and the hoped-for attendant votes. Western countries have a surplus of frigates/destroyers for any likely multilateral blue water operations requiring such vessels. Canadian ones are not essential for the West as a whole; we are exceedingly unlikely to operate on the blue waters on our own.
Then there's the Air Force. Does Canada really require fighters with top-end aerial combat abilities (as opposed to interception and patrol in defence of Canada and North America) and ground-attack capabilities?
[If the government is unwilling now to use our Hornets for ground attack in support of our troops in Afstan, how likely are they ever to be so used in the future? We are unlikely ever to engage in combat on our own and should be able to rely on allied air cover. And allies likely would prefer combat boots on the ground to planes--as now in Afstan. On the other hand, the Air Force should have proper attack helicopters to support the Army. The Griffons in Afstan now have that role in small part though not best suited for it (and the government doesn't like the role publicized--and the very name "attack helicopters" might well scare governments off from getting them, Canadian public and media sensibilities being what they are).]
Trying to maintain "combat-capable, flexible, multi-role" Canadian Forces for all three services is, to my mind, simply impossible for those services all to be effective and efficient, given the limited funding that our governments (both stripes) are willing to provide.
So a true "defence strategy" would attempt to:
1) Outline how the government thinks the CF should be employed for national, and then international, purposes;
2) Outline what mix of service capabilities are required to fulfill those roles.
But that would require serious decisions with political and service consequences this government is not willing to make--nor are, I am sure, most Canadians. Will any Canadian government ever be so ready?
...And how about:
A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet?
Get mad at me--but get mad at our governments first for not being willing, or able, to think honestly in public...'
In other words, we may need something like a "mini-Marine Corps"--excerpt from a comment at an earlier post:
http://tiny.cc/zF1tK
'...
Just to keep stirring, I think the Air Force should give up its fighter-bombing role since we're almost never likely to use it and concentrate on supporting the Army with transport and helicopters--since the Army is the key service Canadian governments have used, and seem likely to keep using, as a foreign policy instrument.
Plus maritime surveillance--air SAR might well be privatized.
Though how one would recruit pilots for the much smaller number of fighters necessary for surveillance and interdiction for Canadian territory would be a major problem--unless the Bears and any successor really do re-emerge as a threat.
In other words, it seems to me the CF should aim at being a mini-Marine Corps in terms of overseas service, with the extra resources needed for surveillance and defence of Canadian territory and waters.'
Mark
Ottawa
In other words, it seems to me the CF should aim at being a mini-Marine Corps in terms of overseas service, with the extra resources needed for surveillance and defence of Canadian territory and waters.
Great, Mark. In that case, I'll just take what the U.S.M.C. is taking, coincidentally to replace their own F-18 fleet...the F-35.
Babbling: Touché. But the point remains about govenmental willingness actually to use the ground attack capability.
Mark
Ottawa
In Afghanistan, Mark, I'd argue that there's not a lack of willingness. At least two more important factors influenced the decision not to send them: they badly needed upgrades to operate in coalition airspace; there has never been any shortage of 'fast air' in theatre.
BB ... If you're going to fly with the eagles, you have to keep your gear up-to-date. Our AF had the same problem in the Balkins. Flying out of Italy ... only to be making donuts in the sky. They sure looked pretty ... but they were as useless as ... well ... you know.
Regards.
Post a Comment
<< Home