CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[PuckChaser]

So much for open and transparent. Wonder how much money Lockheed will win for lost profits when the lawsuit is done because PSPC cooked the competition? Is Canada ready to pay $200M per aircraft when you factor that in?

We all know "interim" means "that's all you are getting for 40 years".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting, if true.

Which version, I wonder- E? F? Growlers? A mix?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Looks more to me like the government is puling a "Harper", something they greatly decried at the time: Kit needed now justifies single sourcing acquisition without any competition (In Harper's government case: C-17/Herc's H/Chinooks).

We'll have to see if it's a limited purchase or a wholesale replacement, which would then delay the need for further replacement to whenever the Super-Hornet line gets shut down and support of the type for the American Navy runs out.

It would let the Liberal claim that they did not purchase the F-35, as promised; completely de-bunk their claim of fair and open competition; and (in my estimation) make them look strangely incompetent when the actual individual cost of the F-35 for international sales is set and then compared to the cost of acquiring these rhinos.

 

[Journeyman]

Which version, I wonder- E? F? Growlers? A mix?

.....second-hand?

(demonstrating distain for the military prudent fiscal management -- one of their strong suits)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It just occurred to me that this may be part diversionary and part counter-narrative.

One of the big problem for the Liberal with acquisition programs, the political aspect at least, is the disastrous Liberal decision concerning the Seaking replacement. To which extent this suddenly discovered "gap" in capability (whose sudden appearance is weird, considering how well the CF-18 performed in Lybia and against ISIS) has been found so super-hornets can be bought and the urgent need to proceed without competition be placed on the shoulders of the Conservatives - in a "Seaking" type of way (regardless of the fact that  a"gap" in the future is quite different than "taking my pen and writing Zero helicopters" on an already signed contract).

Putting the onus on the Conservative to have to proceed this way would both help them say they fulfilled their promise of no F-35 and, by blaming the past government, justify their not holding a competition at all (which in all fairness, the F-35 would have won hands down as the Norwegian have proven.

 

[Kirkhill]

When you can't make a decision - do both.

Thing is - right now the government is only running the risk of Lockmart's lawyers coming at them.  Just like EH's lawyers did. 

With this "decision" they now face the prospect of both Lockmart and Boeing beating them up in a Canadian court as Lockmart argues their case for breach and Boeing defends the government decision.  Oh well.  It's all infrastructure anyway.

Lots of money for lawyers.....

 

[Journeyman]

It just occurred to me that this may be part diversionary and part counter-narrative.

According to the original article, the only  issue the government has with the whole process is “working on the right narrative to support it.”

Pro-government self-congratulatory pronouncements, with bonus points for blaming the previous government are inevitable -- seeing this as the identical non-transparent, single-source acquisition behaviour they previously decried will not flicker on their spin deliberations.

 

[PuckChaser]

Are we at an urgent need? We bought Gwagons because people were dying in Iltis. We bought RG31s as we had a capability gap, same with Chinook and Globemaster. As long as we stop all the extra crap, and focus the CF18s on NORAD, can they not last? We no where have near the budget to buy interim aircraft and then a full capability later, and the Super Hornet has lost every head to head competition to F-35, and even Eurofighter.

 

[dapaterson]

Chinooks and C17s were unique in the marketplace, so there was no competition (the A400 was still not operational at the time).  The GWagon was a competitive process.

In this case, if we argue that the F35 does not yet meet the HLMRs for NGFC (which it the case), then buying an off-the-shelf piece of equipment is eminently justifiable.  How you then exclude certain competitors becomes another issue, but I think given the sensitivity of information needed and generated by modern fighter aircraft, limiting competition to Canada, US, UK, Australia and NZ would also likely pass the test.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Looks more to me like the government is puling a "Harper", something they greatly decried at the time: Kit needed now justifies single sourcing acquisition without any competition (In Harper's government case: C-17/Herc's H/Chinooks).

The CPC skipped the process because those items were what was available, we were at war and needed them now.

The liberals can use none of those excuses in trying to justify their position.

 

[YZT580]

Now if we still had a "six pack" in Iraq we could then claim operational necessity because of the afore-mentioned inability to meet other NORAD/NATO commitments to due our aging and diminished fleet but Trudeau destroyed that argument when he ordered the withdrawal.

 

[PuckChaser]

From the NP article:

ndustry representatives warned there could be a fight if the government does move to purchase the Super Hornet, even if it’s labelled an interim measure. But one Defence Department officials said the government might be able to sidestep legal questions by citing urgent national security needs.

What urgent national security needs would that be? We're not at war with ISIL. Trudeau has made that vehemently clear. The only reason to buy interim aircraft is because they know they can't fix the procurement cycle that takes 10-15 years, with which they reset the fighter replacement program back to square one. They are looking at a life extension program for CF-188 to bring them until 2025 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-975.page), so a proper competition gets aircraft in hangers (without interims) prior to end of life.

The army had to cut half of its truck fleet, and didn't get interim replacements. Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?

 

[Kirkhill]

PC:

Trucks need a boat to get them to and from.

The aircraft are self-deployable and easily retrieved.

In the words of an old song: "Get in. Get out. No f!cking about."

It appears that the Red Team is learning on the job. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

They are looking at a life extension program for CF-188 to bring them until 2025 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-975.page), so a proper competition gets aircraft in hangers (without interims) prior to end of life.

2025 doesn't mean we will have all airframes available until then.  It will be a gradual reduction in fleet.  2025 means the last CF-18s will be retired then.  We won't have the same capabilities we have now, in 2025.

The army had to cut half of its truck fleet, and didn't get interim replacements. Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?

We cut out fighter fleet from 138 to 80 in the mid-2000s.  The RCAF does prioritize its missions.  Our leadership (supported by every level) makes it crystal clear that a failure in NORAD will put everything else to a halt.  This is our #1 mission.  Out FG effort may not look like it but, in all fairness, the NORAD game we play now is a very straight forward game and, from the tactical level, very easy to execute.

 

[PuckChaser]

By prioritize I mean cut everything that's not NORAD, or FG pilots for the fighter stream. No more REASSURANCE, IMPACT, even the Demo aircraft is something we can use for actual missions, not airshows and hotels.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You cannot cut FG and expect pilots to be able to perform when called upon.  You need to keep your skills sharp.  This requires 150 hours a year per pilot minimum, ideally 200.  4 Squadrons of 16 plus an OTU, that's around 10,500 minimum, ideall 12,500 hours a year.  We are expected to do multi-role (and getting rid of that capability would be an enormous mistake IMO) therefore we need to train to it.  Believe it or not, IMPACT, MOBILE and REASSURANCE lenghten the life of the jets (the types of missions we conduct on operation are easier on the airframe) therefore it extends the amount of hours we can fly on a given airframe.

The puzzle is much more complicated than "cut this and re-instate when we will need it again".  Such a decision would have far reaching impacts well into the next decade and maybe into the 2030s. 

If the government decides we only do NORAD then they lose a very easy tool to deploy when they want to keep the footprint down while still contributing on the international stage.

The Demo is a recruiting tool, just like the Snowbirds.  This is at the Strat level...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now if we still had a "six pack" in Iraq we could then claim operational necessity because of the afore-mentioned inability to meet other NORAD/NATO commitments to due our aging and diminished fleet but Trudeau destroyed that argument when he ordered the withdrawal.

Trudeau can't use it now, but it could have been used pre-Trudeau -- and didn't get used.

Methinks only the lawyers will win here, not the folks needing decent planes ...  :'(

 

[PuckChaser]

If the government decides we only do NORAD then they lose a very easy tool to deploy when they want to keep the footprint down while still contributing on the international stage.

You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.

You can enforce no-fly zones mandated by the UN (Operations Southern + Northern Watch).  But that's beside the point.  The question should be "What do we want the jets to do", before we ask ourselves "What do we need".  As far as I can see, the government haven't really defined what our mission is expected to be between now and 50 years for now, to include potential threats.  This will drive our requirements.

If would be incredibly short-sighted to confine us to NORAD IMO.  I have no doubt that a government, between now and 50 years from now, will feel compelled to deploy fighter/attack aircraft to some theater.  If all you have done for the last 10 years is NORAD, you can't do that very easily:  you'll need months if not years of catching up (and it is beyond flying for proficiency, you will need to buy a good tactics manual from somebody, comprehend it, apply it and train to it).  Flying a fighter is not like jumping in your car and going.  It is mentally involved and requires constant training, mostly for the brain.  I have been out of flying tactically for less than 1 year and I wouldn't be able to jump in and fly any tactical mission safely and effectively, nevermind lead anything tactically complex (and I considered myself at the peak of my tactical proficiency when I left). 

I think our leadership understands this and I hope they'll be able to convince the government the same.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?

It does,  AND it's not quite as simple as 'just saying no'.