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

[MarkOttawa]

Note ref. at end to pilots leaving RCAF:

Liberal Plan For Interim Jets Tackles 'Capability Gap' That Doesn't Exist: Experts
Feds accused of buying "bucket of bolts" from Australia.

The federal government is expected to announce Tuesday that it will delay the launch of an open competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fighter jets and purchase second-hand 30-year-old Australian aircraft instead in an effort to fix a capability gap that industry observers describe as "fictional."

"It is absolutely, totally, nonsensical," Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister (materiel) for national defence, told HuffPost Canada of the Liberal government's impending announcement.

"There is no need to have interim jets. There is no need to waste billions of dollars, no need to train people on different platforms," he said. "Even if you admit there is a gap — which I don't think anyone seriously believes — the way to go about resolving it is exactly the opposite of what they are doing."
'You are not reinventing the wheel'

The fastest way to fix the problem is through a competition, he said.

"Everything is out there. You are not reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why they can't start that within a month, if they want to."

...25 months after forming government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's ministers are suggesting an open competition won't occur until 2019.

"They could have announced they would run a competition two years ago," Williams said, "and be well done with it."..

While the Grits have promised to buy 88 brand fighter aircraft, Sajjan told reporters more planes are needed to address an "interim capability gap."

That gap is the number of jets required to fulfil Canada's NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously. The National Defence Department won't say what missions might be compromised if new jets aren't purchased and for decades successive governments have managed the risk believing it was unlikely all those aircraft would be needed at the same time.

"For reasons of operational security, the RCAF cannot comment further on how it manages the employment of its CF-18 fleet," Daniel Le Bouthillier, the head of media relations at DND, told HuffPost Canada.

The high-end of Canada's NATO obligation is a promise to have six jets ready to fly in short order, said David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The NORAD commitment is classified. "It would be the worst case scenario — literally, the Russians are coming," Perry said...

[But serving Air Force major said this in 2006:

...In NORAD, the Canadian Forces are committed to provide 36 fighters for air sovereignty and homeland security.  In addition to this Canada is committed to provide six or more fighters to the United Nations and/or NATO at any given time, should the need arise...
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1466311.html#msg1466311

But now the numbers have been deleted at end p. 36 and start p. 37 in the only version of the piece I can now find on the web!!!

Latest edit: see footnote 5 (for NORAD figure of 36--"Various unclassified briefings conducted
at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters  – Winnipeg, Manitoba"; would be no footnote unless it was for numbers as no need to document the overall, as opposed to specific, NORAD commitment
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/doc/roberds-eng.pdf ]

Al Stephenson, a retired colonel with 35 years experience flying fighter aircraft, also believes there is no gap.

"This capability gap is a figment of their imagination," he said.

"The funny thing is they have dismissed the experts saying there is a capability gap and now they are creating one in order to delay the competition," Stephenson told HuffPost.

He is concerned that the government's timeline for an open competition will be five years, and extend past two elections — "which is nonsense."..

A competition might also entice pilots to stay in the air force longer, he said. A steady number leave each year to join the airline industry or take lucrative jobs as private pilots in the Middle East [emphasis added], he said...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/12/liberal-plan-for-interim-jets-tackles-capability-gap-that-doesnt-exist-experts_a_23304661/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dapaterson]

There is zero information on pilots leaving the RCAF in that article - no discussion of attrition rates, and how they compare to historical norms, or to the rest of the CAF, or to others in the same demographic circumstances.  Just an offhand comment about some pilots leaving.

 

[FSTO]

So the current government invents a capability gap for the RCAF to hold off the procurement of a much needed new fighter, while the clear and present capability gap that has existed in the RCN (AOR's) is blithely dismissed (by a former Navy man) as not important. And people wonder why we deride the military commitments of our successive governments.


And no, 1 AOR on one coast does not diminish the need for another i-AOR!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two "Policy Updates" at Canadian Global Affairs Institute (note background of author of first, quoted near end of this post just above https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1512759.html#msg1512759 ):

Gaming the CF-18 Fighter Replacement: The Politicizing of a Military Procurement
...
About the Author

Col Al Stephenson (Ret’d) is an aviation consultant and a 35-year veteran of the Canadian Forces. Stephenson’s knowledge of NORAD and NATO follows from his experience as a CF-18 pilot and staff officer at all levels of command. He holds a PhD from Carleton University and is also a CGAI Fellow.
http://www.cgai.ca/gaming_the_cf_18_fighter_replacement_the_politicizing_of_a_military_procurement

Canada Looks to the Past for Fighter Fix while Allies Fly in the 21st Century
by Matthew Fisher
http://www.cgai.ca/canada_looks_to_the_past_for_fighter_fix_while_allies_fly_in_the_21st_century

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

It seems a bit unreal for any standing air force to claim that they have all they need to perform the assigned missions? OTOH, why say no to a larger fleet of a/c.  And since when is a Canadian government in the past 50 years (or more) ever been serious about getting serious. What a joke. The next step will be the tax payers federation stepping in attempting to get an injunction preventing the government prerogative to waste money in farcical issues likes this. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-armed-forces/statement-from-the-chief-of-the-defence-staff/2184356095124914/

Earlier this year, as part of the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, the government outlined its commitment to the future of the Canadian Armed Forces. The policy also dictated what the government would require from us in turn - the sustained, concurrent employment of military forces in defence of Canada and North America.

When it comes to fighter jets, the policy is unequivocal. It requires the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to generate sufficient mission-ready aircraft to meet our domestic and international obligations - including both NATO and NORAD commitments - simultaneously. What is also unequivocal is that the RCAF cannot concurrently meet those obligations without some form of supplemental fighter capability.

The most critical thing for me as I look to the long-term health and capacity of the RCAF is the commitment made in the defence policy, and reaffirmed by the government today, to procure advanced fighter jets. Industry engagement is the first step in that process, and I am satisfied to see that step being taken.

To help address the RCAF's near-term needs, the government has announced its intent to acquire 18 Australian F-18s to augment our current fighter fleet. This is a natural fit; the Australian jets are functionally equivalent to our own CF-18s and, once converted to Canadian specifications, will provide an easy transition for our pilots, technicians, and ground crew.

I am fully confident that this supplemental capability will help the RCAF meet our domestic and international obligations until a replacement fighter is chosen and acquired.

Jonathan H Vance
General
Chief of the Defence Staff
---------------------------------------------------

The first few comments seem to suggest 'people aren't buying it'

Personally I've heard more than a few comments regarding how 'in step' the CDS is with The Apple Dumpling Gang and how it is too much in step.  On this issue and others...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

New fighter-jet competition to have 'economic interest' requirement


OTTAWA -- The Trudeau government is kicking off its latest bid to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets -- and adding a new requirement to the procurement process by assessing a company's overall impact on the Canadian economy.

The government is launching a full competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with 88 new fighters by as early as 2025, a move that comes in the midst of an ongoing trade dispute with U.S. aerospace giant Boeing.

"Applications will be rigorously assessed on cost, technical requirements and economic benefit," Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough told a news conference Tuesday.

"Our government feels it is important to maximize economic impacts; as such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders on Canada's economic interests. This new assessment is an incentive for bidders to contribute positively to Canada's economy.

"Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."

Boeing has been eager to submit its Super Hornet to compete for the contract, which is valued at up to $19 billion and expected to start delivering jets in 2025. But the new stipulation could well have an impact on Boeing if its trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier is still alive and ends up being deemed harmful to Canada's economic interests.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the government settled on the number of 88 fighters even though the previous Conservative government had only planned to buy 65 new planes, an effort that never got off the ground.

"After extensive consultations and careful analysis as part of the defence policy review, it was clear that a full fleet of 88 planes are required to fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously," he said.

"Our government will not risk-manage our national defence commitments."

The Liberals are also officially abandoning a plan to buy 18 Super Hornets to temporarily boost Canada's CF-18 fleet, saying they plan instead to buy 18 second-hand fighter jets from Australia.

"We have received an offer for sale of F-18 aircraft from the government of Australia, which we intend to pursue, and we have received an offer of Super Hornets from the U.S. government, which we intend to let expire," Qualtrough said.

Officials briefing reporters on background say that while details are still being worked out, the used Australian jets will cost significantly less than Super Hornets and can be put into action two years faster.

Since Canada already flies a version of the same fighter jet, "the supply chain and maintenance lines required to support these aircraft are already in place," Sajjan said.

 

[McG]

To be fair,  'economic interest' is not a new requirement.  It is in almost every big CAF procurement. Maybe this will start public debate about the extent to which this "requirement" actually influences Canadian tax payers getting the best capability for the value of their defence dollars ... but probably we will not see this conversation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Trudeau government is kicking off its latest bid to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets -- and adding a new requirement to the procurement process by assessing a company's overall impact on the Canadian economy.

"Our government feels it is important to maximize economic impacts; as such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders on Canada's economic interests. This new assessment is an incentive for bidders to contribute positively to Canada's economy.

"Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."

I am (somewhat) aware of the IRB Policy, but the article suggest there will be something in addition to this with this 'new requirement' highlighted above.  Am I misreading, or are they actually just referring to something that already exists that is being sold as 'new'?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think this must be only further "politicking" because the rule is already a dollar for dollar economic benefit impact requirement and I just can't see how they could possibly ask for more economic impact than a 100% local purchase within Canada would generate without running afoul of international trade rules.

But I suggest it is not beyond the Libs to use already existing rules applied as a matter of fact, but little known to Canadians, and wrap them up in red Christmas bows to roll them out as if they just came out with the idea as a great new benefit to Canadians.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So cynical in one so young....

Actually the stated criteria really plays to Lockheeds hands as they can point to guaranteed Canadian content and to long term contracts to provide components for the worldwide fleet. Boeing has a bit of skin in the game already with any existing contracts. The C-series stuff will be old news by then. The Europeans will have to scramble to create potential partnerships to lay the groundwork.

 

[suffolkowner]

So the current government invents a capability gap for the RCAF to hold off the procurement of a much needed new fighter, while the clear and present capability gap that has existed in the RCN (AOR's) is blithely dismissed (by a former Navy man) as not important. And people wonder why we deride the military commitments of our successive governments.


And no, 1 AOR on one coast does not diminish the need for another i-AOR!

I think both the fighter capability gap and AOR gap just represent how far the military will go to stay in line with the government of the day

 

[Rifleman62]

"Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."

At the risk of being slammed, that statement shows how infantile PM Trudeau and his advisors are.

I agree with ColinP that it will probably assist Lockheed.

The C-series stuff will be old news by then.

Probably 20+ years old by the time the first new RCAF aircraft is delivered.

I have no idea how West Jet/AC  lease/buy their aircraft. Do they get financial assistance from the Government of Canada by way of loans, loan guarantees, subsidized lease rates? If so there could be problems for them re Boeing and a vindictive LPC.

Would a new government speed up the process of acquiring new aircraft? I hope the Oz F-18's like the cold. :nod:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Eurofighter should still be in position to be able to compete with a 2025 first delivery date (Airbus working with Bombardier? just drool at the economic benefits and hang the cost):

Qatari Order Extends Eurofighter Production To 2024
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/qatari-order-extends-eurofighter-production-2024

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

There is zero information on pilots leaving the RCAF in that article - no discussion of attrition rates, and how they compare to historical norms, or to the rest of the CAF, or to others in the same demographic circumstances.  Just an offhand comment about some pilots leaving.

Because it is not in the article doesn't mean it's not real.  The exodus is real and the reason people leave is a because of the compounding effect of multiple bad decisions: the 3-year mandatory service after completing an OTU (even if you were previously qualified on-type), the realization that flying something new will not happen in our time, the lack of recognition, financial strain on families due to having to move out of a housing market that took a dive, etc...

We have lost a lot of experience in the Fighter Force this year: mostly high 1000s to mid 2000s hours guys and gals with the highest level of qualification they can get.  But you need not worry, we'll replace them by brand new guys out of the OTU!

Rant off

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-canadas-incurable-case-of-fighter-jet-lag/article37309723/

Globe editorial: Canada’s incurable case of fighter-jet lag - 12 Dec 17

At this point in Canadian history, it has become a real challenge to put one's faith in Ottawa's ability to purchase modern fighter jets.

Our air force has an aging fleet of CF-18s purchased in the 1980s, and of which about 80 are still operational. That may or may not be adequate for fulfilling all of our military obligations, depending on whom you ask.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper wanted to replace the CF-18s with 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, but its sole-source procurement process was so botched that the cost ballooned from $9-billion to $45-billion, and Ottawa had to start over again.

The Trudeau government came to power with the promise of a new and better competitive bidding process. It also said it would fill interim operational gaps by purchasing 18 Boeing Super Hornets, a sole-source contract worth $6.4-billion.

Then, in April, Boeing launched a (so far) successful trade dispute against Bombardier. So Ottawa said on Tuesday that it is cancelling the Hornet deal in retaliation and instead will buy used F-18s from Australia for at least $500-million.

The government also said it will formally launch its bidding process in 2019, with the goal of awarding a contract in 2022 and getting planes delivered by 2025. One caveat: The contract will not go to a company "that is responsible for harm to Canada's economic interest" [cough cough Boeing].

So that's where we are. If the Conservatives hadn't made a mess of things, we'd have brand new fighter jets in the air by now. Instead, our aging fleet will be bolstered by Australian leftovers – not necessarily a bad thing, but far from ideal. We'll finally get new planes in 2025, nine years after the last new ones were supposed to have been uncrated.

That's the theory, anyway. With a four-year timeline for finalizing a contract, anything can happen. A new government could scrap the plan. Or our over-politicized procurement process could again go off the rails and we could end up buying more planes off the international used-jet sales lot.

History tells us that it is impossible to know how this will turn out, which makes it impossible to evaluate the government's new plan. The most that can be said is that Ottawa didn't do anything particularly dumb on Tuesday. It's a start.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-canadas-incurable-case-of-fighter-jet-lag/article37309723/

Globe editorial: Canada’s incurable case of fighter-jet lag - 12 Dec 17

At this point in Canadian history, it has become a real challenge to put one's faith in Ottawa's ability to purchase modern fighter jets.

Our air force has an aging fleet of CF-18s purchased in the 1980s, and of which about 80 are still operational. That may or may not be adequate for fulfilling all of our military obligations, depending on whom you ask.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper wanted to replace the CF-18s with 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, but its sole-source procurement process was so botched that the cost ballooned from $9-billion to $45-billion, and Ottawa had to start over again.

The Trudeau government came to power with the promise of a new and better competitive bidding process. It also said it would fill interim operational gaps by purchasing 18 Boeing Super Hornets, a sole-source contract worth $6.4-billion.

Then, in April, Boeing launched a (so far) successful trade dispute against Bombardier. So Ottawa said on Tuesday that it is cancelling the Hornet deal in retaliation and instead will buy used F-18s from Australia for at least $500-million.

The government also said it will formally launch its bidding process in 2019, with the goal of awarding a contract in 2022 and getting planes delivered by 2025. One caveat: The contract will not go to a company "that is responsible for harm to Canada's economic interest" [cough cough Boeing].

So that's where we are. If the Conservatives hadn't made a mess of things, we'd have brand new fighter jets in the air by now. Instead, our aging fleet will be bolstered by Australian leftovers – not necessarily a bad thing, but far from ideal. We'll finally get new planes in 2025, nine years after the last new ones were supposed to have been uncrated.

That's the theory, anyway. With a four-year timeline for finalizing a contract, anything can happen. A new government could scrap the plan. Or our over-politicized procurement process could again go off the rails and we could end up buying more planes off the international used-jet sales lot.

History tells us that it is impossible to know how this will turn out, which makes it impossible to evaluate the government's new plan. The most that can be said is that Ottawa didn't do anything particularly dumb on Tuesday. It's a start.

And decades later our betters in the media still can't figure out how to evaluate a cost......  :facepalm:

We are back to the era of John Wilkes and his pamphlets.

 

[dimsum]

We have lost a lot of experience in the Fighter Force this year: mostly high 1000s to mid 2000s hours guys and gals with the highest level of qualification they can get.  But you need not worry, we'll replace them by brand new guys out of the OTU!

Rant off

That isn't just in the fighter force, and not just with Pilots either.  It's a crap sandwich all around in all fleets, and all (aircrew) trades.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Funny, and not funny at the same time...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

So trying to find the silver lining....

As twisted as this whole process has been, the one positive is at the end the RCAF will end up with 23 more replacement fighters than would have been procured had the original Harper plan moved ahead?

88 vs 65?  ???