Updated: Canada picks F-35 as CF-18 fighter replacement

bikerthai · Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:58 am

kitplane01 wrote:
For 11 years now Canada has been aboot to buy a fighter, and yet no fighter.

I see what you just did there. Was it a typo or are you trying to sound Canadien?

bt

kitplane01 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:14 am

bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
For 11 years now Canada has been aboot to buy a fighter, and yet no fighter.

I see what you just did there. Was it a typo or are you trying to sound Canadien?

bt

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:34 am

kitplane01 wrote:
For 11 years now Canada has been aboot to buy a fighter, and yet no fighter. The current PM swore not the F-35, and yet that's the leading contender. It might happen, and it might be 88. But the program has not been smoothly run, and has not kept to schedule.

Weasel words dude.

Procurement progress and engagement
The procurement is being completed through an open, fair and transparent competitive process.

2017
The Government of Canada launched an open and transparent competitive process to acquire new fighter jets to replace the existing fleet
Began Industry engagement as part of the competitive process
2018
An open information session was held on January 22 to inform foreign governments and industry about responding to the Suppliers List Invitation, and provide an opportunity for Canadian industry to network with foreign governments and fighter aircraft manufacturers
The event, which provided information on how the Government of Canada plans to buy new jets, was well-received and well-attended, with over 200 participants from more than 80 companies and 7 countries taking part
The associated agenda and a copy of the opening remarks from this event are accessible
A list of eligible suppliers as defined in the Suppliers List Invitation was established in February
The Government of Canada met several times with each supplier to:
obtain feedback on requirements and the notional procurement approach
address their feedback and create a level playing field that maximizes competition while ensuring that Canadian requirements are met
discuss aircraft system engineering, sustainment infrastructure, economic benefits and the procurement approach
Preliminary security requirements documents were shared with eligible suppliers in September
A draft version of the RFP was released to eligible suppliers for their review and feedback in October
Eligible suppliers were invited to visit the Government of Canada’s main operating bases for a first-hand look at existing fighter operations and infrastructure
2019
A second draft of the RFP was released to eligible suppliers for their review and feedback in June
The Government of Canada released the formal RFP to eligible suppliers and invited them to demonstrate how they can meet Canada’s future fighter capability requirements in July
Eligible suppliers were required to submit preliminary security offers for meeting Canada’s security and interoperability requirements by October 4
2020 and beyond
In January 2020, feedback was provided to eligible suppliers on their security offers, in order to help ensure that Canada receives competitive proposals that meet its technical, cost and economic benefits requirements
On February 24, the Government of Canada granted a 3-month extension to the RFP deadline at the request of industry
On May 6, 2020 at the request of industry, the Government of Canada granted another month extension to the proposal submission deadline as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the industry. Eligible suppliers had until July 31, 2020 to submit their proposals
On July 31, 2020 the bid solicitation phase closed, proposals were received from all three eligible suppliers and the process entered the bid evaluation phase
Proposals are being rigorously assessed on elements of capability, cost and economic benefits
During the evaluation, a phased bid compliance process will be used to ensure that bidders have an opportunity to address non-compliance in their proposals related to mandatory criteria
Once the initial evaluation of proposals has been completed, Canada may enter into dialogue with two or more compliant bidders and request revised proposals
Canada will finalize terms with the preferred bidder prior to contract award anticipated in 2022. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected as early as 2025

Pretty consistent timeline... less time than the Finns and more than the Swiss.

art · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:34 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

I think that the capability weighting should present an insuperable problem for Gripen E.

However if confidence is low in estimates of F-35 overall costs being realistic (or even within the bounds of realism), perhaps Canada will turn away from F-35 on the basis that it might end up swallowing up a vast proportion of the Canadian defence budget.

Personally I never believed from the word go the LM promise that as an F-16 replacement the F-35 would offer vastly greater capability per frame at a comparable cost.

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 am

art wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

I think that the capability weighting should present an insuperable problem for Gripen E.

However if confidence is low in estimates of F-35 overall costs being realistic (or even within the bounds of realism), perhaps Canada will turn away from F-35 on the basis that it might end up swallowing up a vast proportion of the Canadian defence budget.

Personally I never believed from the word go the LM promise that as an F-16 replacement the F-35 would offer vastly greater capability per frame at a comparable cost.

Why would O Canada have concerns about F-35 cost when the Swiss just selected it and the Finns likely to shortly as well. Does the cost matter if the cheaper aircraft you select gets shot down in greater numbers? There is a reason capability is 60%.

Let Billie the Flynn guide you https://billieflynn.com/f-35-war-gaming-fear-mongering/

RJMAZ · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:26 am

Nice analysis. Putting this into perspective for Canada.

If Canada purchased 40 Gripen only 6 enemy aircraft would get shot down. Canada would lose 20 of their Gripen aircraft.

If 40 F-35 are purchased 120 enemy aircraft are shot down and only 9 F-35 are lost.

The F-35 kills 20 times as many enemy fighters with less than half the losses. The F-35 is effectively 40 times better than Gripen.

How stupid must someone be to think the Gripen is a good choice for Canada. If they want to save money simply buy fewer F-35.

art · Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Nice analysis. Putting this into perspective for Canada.

If Canada purchased 40 Gripen only 6 enemy aircraft would get shot down. Canada would lose 20 of their Gripen aircraft.

If 40 F-35 are purchased 120 enemy aircraft are shot down and only 9 F-35 are lost.

The F-35 kills 20 times as many enemy fighters with less than half the losses. The F-35 is effectively 40 times better than Gripen.

How stupid must someone be to think the Gripen is a good choice for Canada. If they want to save money simply buy fewer F-35.

I follow that argument and capability is the most important criterion for Canada.

However, I don't think that countries' defence hinges solely on the capability of its fighters. If F-35 proves to be a dollar guzzler, other areas of defence will be compromised so I fear that F-35 (for all its capability) will actually reduce the overall defence capability of countries that buy it.

kanye · Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:07 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kanye wrote:
A good thing is that the Norwegian budget and costs for F35 is public and can be found online.
Here is an article about it, thoughts and comments?

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 7i%3E.html

Settle down cowboy, there is a lot wrong with that article and his snarky comes through well. This is the same guy that said the Swiss were also now paying more but didn't realise the whole price already factored in inflation. Credibility factor is low...

What's wrong?
I agree the article is a bit biased and the authors own opinions makes it feel a bit unprofessional.
However the numbers are linked to a source and comes straight from the Norwegian government budget. This is an operator actually flying the F35 now and not just planning to do so. You can't find more accurate numbers than this.

johns624 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:25 pm

art wrote:

However, I don't think that countries' defence hinges solely on the capability of its fighters. If F-35 proves to be a dollar guzzler, other areas of defence will be compromised so I fear that F-35 (for all its capability) will actually reduce the overall defence capability of countries that buy it.

However, it can be argued that the RCAF is the most important element of the Canadian defense scheme, with the RCN next. The army is relatively small without much power projection without US help. With the polar areas being more and more important, control of the airspace above them is vitally important. The RCN is also important, but not so much. I don't see them acquiring all 15 Type 26 frigates that they're talking about. I'd say 12 at the most.

kitplane01 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:13 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
For 11 years now Canada has been aboot to buy a fighter, and yet no fighter. The current PM swore not the F-35, and yet that's the leading contender. It might happen, and it might be 88. But the program has not been smoothly run, and has not kept to schedule.

Weasel words dude.

Procurement progress and engagement
The procurement is being completed through an open, fair and transparent competitive process.

2017
The Government of Canada launched an open and transparent competitive process to acquire new fighter jets to replace the existing fleet
Began Industry engagement as part of the competitive process
2018
An open information session was held on January 22 to inform foreign governments and industry about responding to the Suppliers List Invitation, and provide an opportunity for Canadian industry to network with foreign governments and fighter aircraft manufacturers
The event, which provided information on how the Government of Canada plans to buy new jets, was well-received and well-attended, with over 200 participants from more than 80 companies and 7 countries taking part
The associated agenda and a copy of the opening remarks from this event are accessible
A list of eligible suppliers as defined in the Suppliers List Invitation was established in February
The Government of Canada met several times with each supplier to:
obtain feedback on requirements and the notional procurement approach
address their feedback and create a level playing field that maximizes competition while ensuring that Canadian requirements are met
discuss aircraft system engineering, sustainment infrastructure, economic benefits and the procurement approach
Preliminary security requirements documents were shared with eligible suppliers in September
A draft version of the RFP was released to eligible suppliers for their review and feedback in October
Eligible suppliers were invited to visit the Government of Canada’s main operating bases for a first-hand look at existing fighter operations and infrastructure
2019
A second draft of the RFP was released to eligible suppliers for their review and feedback in June
The Government of Canada released the formal RFP to eligible suppliers and invited them to demonstrate how they can meet Canada’s future fighter capability requirements in July
Eligible suppliers were required to submit preliminary security offers for meeting Canada’s security and interoperability requirements by October 4
2020 and beyond
In January 2020, feedback was provided to eligible suppliers on their security offers, in order to help ensure that Canada receives competitive proposals that meet its technical, cost and economic benefits requirements
On February 24, the Government of Canada granted a 3-month extension to the RFP deadline at the request of industry
On May 6, 2020 at the request of industry, the Government of Canada granted another month extension to the proposal submission deadline as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the industry. Eligible suppliers had until July 31, 2020 to submit their proposals
On July 31, 2020 the bid solicitation phase closed, proposals were received from all three eligible suppliers and the process entered the bid evaluation phase
Proposals are being rigorously assessed on elements of capability, cost and economic benefits
During the evaluation, a phased bid compliance process will be used to ensure that bidders have an opportunity to address non-compliance in their proposals related to mandatory criteria
Once the initial evaluation of proposals has been completed, Canada may enter into dialogue with two or more compliant bidders and request revised proposals
Canada will finalize terms with the preferred bidder prior to contract award anticipated in 2022. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected as early as 2025

Pretty consistent timeline... less time than the Finns and more than the Swiss.

Weasel word dude.

The timeline doesn't start in 2017.

In 1997 Canada joined the F-35 program (and has paid $613M so far to get no jets). In 2010 the then PM announced he was going to purchase 65 F-35s (but didn't). In 2015 Trudeau announced they were going to have a new fighter program open to lots of planes but NOT the F-35 (now the F-35 is the leading contender). Now in 2021 they say they are close to making a decision.

That's NOT a fast nor consistent timeline.

bikerthai · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:23 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
1997 Canada joined the F-35 program

Didn't the US tanker program began right after 9-11-2001?

bt

johns624 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:51 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
[ (and has paid $613M so far to get no jets).

Maybe because they haven't ordered any?
The money they paid are industrial design costs to be part of the program, not for any airframes.

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:41 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Weasel word dude.

The timeline doesn't start in 2017.

In 1997 Canada joined the F-35 program (and has paid $613M so far to get no jets). In 2010 the then PM announced he was going to purchase 65 F-35s (but didn't). In 2015 Trudeau announced they were going to have a new fighter program open to lots of planes but NOT the F-35 (now the F-35 is the leading contender). Now in 2021 they say they are close to making a decision.

That's NOT a fast nor consistent timeline.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post.

In 97 the Canucks joined the SDD program and yes have paid $600 millionarios. The return for that 600 millionarios is nearly 2 billionarios in industry work so far... The SDD program is not the jet ordering program... Norway and the Danes amongst others ran competitions even though they are SDD dudes. The Canuck plan was always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe and JSF delays had more to do with that than Canuck faltering. When Trudeau the worse won he has at least done what he said and ran a competition that started in 2017. Competitions don't happen overnight and their timeframe was consistent with Swiss and Finns.

kitplane01 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:00 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Weasel word dude.

The timeline doesn't start in 2017.

In 1997 Canada joined the F-35 program (and has paid $613M so far to get no jets). In 2010 the then PM announced he was going to purchase 65 F-35s (but didn't). In 2015 Trudeau announced they were going to have a new fighter program open to lots of planes but NOT the F-35 (now the F-35 is the leading contender). Now in 2021 they say they are close to making a decision.

That's NOT a fast nor consistent timeline.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post.

In 97 the Canucks joined the SDD program and yes have paid $600 millionarios. The return for that 600 millionarios is nearly 2 billionarios in industry work so far... The SDD program is not the jet ordering program... Norway and the Danes amongst others ran competitions even though they are SDD dudes. The Canuck plan was always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe and JSF delays had more to do with that than Canuck faltering. When Trudeau the worse won he has at least done what he said and ran a competition that started in 2017. Competitions don't happen overnight and their timeframe was consistent with Swiss and Finns.

Again if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post. The Canuck plan was not to "always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe " because Trudeau publicly, repeatedly said he was not going to buy the F-35. But of course now he might.

'In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.' -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.3235791

'Six years ago, Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:19 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Weasel word dude.

The timeline doesn't start in 2017.

In 1997 Canada joined the F-35 program (and has paid $613M so far to get no jets). In 2010 the then PM announced he was going to purchase 65 F-35s (but didn't). In 2015 Trudeau announced they were going to have a new fighter program open to lots of planes but NOT the F-35 (now the F-35 is the leading contender). Now in 2021 they say they are close to making a decision.

That's NOT a fast nor consistent timeline.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post.

In 97 the Canucks joined the SDD program and yes have paid $600 millionarios. The return for that 600 millionarios is nearly 2 billionarios in industry work so far... The SDD program is not the jet ordering program... Norway and the Danes amongst others ran competitions even though they are SDD dudes. The Canuck plan was always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe and JSF delays had more to do with that than Canuck faltering. When Trudeau the worse won he has at least done what he said and ran a competition that started in 2017. Competitions don't happen overnight and their timeframe was consistent with Swiss and Finns.

Again if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post. The Canuck plan was not to "always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe " because Trudeau publicly, repeatedly said he was not going to buy the F-35. But of course now he might.

'In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.' -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.3235791

'Six years ago, Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

Harpers/Conservatives plan to order in 2016-17 my confused friend, Harpers plan not Trudeau...

johns624 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:11 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.' -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.3235791

'Six years ago, Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

Yet, so far, the only naval vessels laid down are basically unarmed "ice patrol ships" that don't have much icebreaking capability as probably needed. They keep talking about "up to 15" Type 26 frigates, but since their current navy is operating with 12 frigates, I don't see them building more than 10. When Trudeau was talking about a new, next generation plane other than the F35, he had no idea what was (and wasn't) available. He was just another politician with oral diarrhea. In the meantime, the CF18s and Halifax-class just keep getting older and older along with the CP140 Auroras. That's what happens when you keep kicking replacement plans down the road, sooner or later everything needs to be replaced at once and you don't have the money.

bikerthai · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:19 pm

johns624 wrote:
In the meantime, the CF18s and Halifax-class just keep getting older and older along with the CP140 Auroras.

Don't forget the P-3Cs not in the distant future. What with the Arctic sea ice melting, maritime patrol in that vast northern coast line will be come more important, no?

bt

johns624 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:07 am

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
In the meantime, the CF18s and Halifax-class just keep getting older and older along with the CP140 Auroras.

Don't forget the P-3Cs not in the distant future. What with the Arctic sea ice melting, maritime patrol in that vast northern coast line will be come more important, no?

bt

Those are the CP140 Auroras I mentioned. For some stupid reason, Canada always comes up with different designations for their aircraft than the rest of the world. Maybe it makes them feel "special".

bikerthai · Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:13 am

johns624 wrote:
Those are the CP140 Auroras I mentioned.

That's a relief. For a moment I thought there was one more thread to be burning my time on.

bt

ThePointblank · Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:42 am

johns624 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
In the meantime, the CF18s and Halifax-class just keep getting older and older along with the CP140 Auroras.

Don't forget the P-3Cs not in the distant future. What with the Arctic sea ice melting, maritime patrol in that vast northern coast line will be come more important, no?

bt
Those are the CP140 Auroras I mentioned. For some stupid reason, Canada always comes up with different designations for their aircraft than the rest of the world. Maybe it makes them feel "special".

The CP-140 Auroras were basically P-3 Orions fitted with the sensor suite and electronics from the S-3 Viking. Different aircraft on the interior as a result.

And the CP-140's just underwent a major structural upgrade, replacing outer wing panels and horizontal stabilizers on the aircraft. They are also still undergoing the Aurora Incremental Modernization Project, which are updating sensors, computers, and comms systems onboard as well; these upgrades should take them out to the 2030 timeframe.

kitplane01 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:23 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Again, if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post.

In 97 the Canucks joined the SDD program and yes have paid $600 millionarios. The return for that 600 millionarios is nearly 2 billionarios in industry work so far... The SDD program is not the jet ordering program... Norway and the Danes amongst others ran competitions even though they are SDD dudes. The Canuck plan was always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe and JSF delays had more to do with that than Canuck faltering. When Trudeau the worse won he has at least done what he said and ran a competition that started in 2017. Competitions don't happen overnight and their timeframe was consistent with Swiss and Finns.

Again if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post. The Canuck plan was not to "always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe " because Trudeau publicly, repeatedly said he was not going to buy the F-35. But of course now he might.

'In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.' -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.3235791

'Six years ago, Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

Harpers/Conservatives plan to order in 2016-17 my confused friend, Harpers plan not Trudeau...

Dear confused friend

The relevant metric is what the Canadian government's plans were. So far they have been (1) Buy the F-35 without a competition (2) Have a competition that excludes the F-35 and now (3) have a competition the F-35 will probably win. They've been vacillating since 2001. Even the current PM has changed his mind from "anyone except the F-35" to "F-35 or Gripen". And that's just between now and 2015.

Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

Oroka · Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:36 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

This is sadly the norm when it comes to military procurement in Canada. Look into the CH-124 Seaking replacement, the process started in 1983 and finally replaced in 2018. If a significant military purchase isnt completed by the time a different federal party gets in office, its almost guaranteed to get canceled as bloat by the the incoming party.

The Liberals are going to drag this out as long as possible so people mostly forget that they canceled the F-35 purchase and it becomes the only viable option. The CF-18 replacement is going to have to last 40-50 years, there is no way they are going to buy a 4.5 gen fighter now if they can afford the F-35. They were never going to buy the Super Hornet after the stunt Boeing pulled about Bombardier Subsidies... my guess is they were just stringing Boeing on out of spite.

SeamanBeaumont · Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:20 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Again if you don't know what you're talking about then perhaps reconsider your post. The Canuck plan was not to "always to order in the 2016-1017 timeframe " because Trudeau publicly, repeatedly said he was not going to buy the F-35. But of course now he might.

'In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.' -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.3235791

'Six years ago, Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

Harpers/Conservatives plan to order in 2016-17 my confused friend, Harpers plan not Trudeau...

Dear confused friend

The relevant metric is what the Canadian government's plans were. So far they have been (1) Buy the F-35 without a competition (2) Have a competition that excludes the F-35 and now (3) have a competition the F-35 will probably win. They've been vacillating since 2001. Even the current PM has changed his mind from "anyone except the F-35" to "F-35 or Gripen". And that's just between now and 2015.

Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

Well your persistent even if you have some lose screws.

The only thing that changed was the Harper Govt losing in 2015. A fair and open competition has been run since then as Trudeau said (can't believe I am actually agreeing with that dunderhead...). Sure they said SuperBug and then not SuperBug but that was never going to change the competition timeframe. Neither has the Aussie little bug buy changed the competition. That there is only F-35 and Gripen left is about three things, the NORAD requirements meaning Rafale and Eurofigher knew they couldn't win, Saab deluded enough to think they can win and the US Govt screwing Boeings submission making it not compliant. Competition minus COVID being a bastard has been on track.

ThePointblank · Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:42 pm

Confirmation that Boeing has officially been eliminated from the competition:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... ompetition

OTTAWA — Canada has officially narrowed its decade-long hunt for a new fighter jet to two choices as the federal government confirmed U.S. aerospace giant Boeing’s Super Hornet is out of the running to replace the military’s aging CF-18s.

The announcement from Public Services and Procurement Canada came nearly a week after The Canadian Press reported the surprise news that Boeing had been told its bid for the $19-billion contract did not meet Ottawa’s requirements.

kitplane01 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:21 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Harpers/Conservatives plan to order in 2016-17 my confused friend, Harpers plan not Trudeau...

Dear confused friend

The relevant metric is what the Canadian government's plans were. So far they have been (1) Buy the F-35 without a competition (2) Have a competition that excludes the F-35 and now (3) have a competition the F-35 will probably win. They've been vacillating since 2001. Even the current PM has changed his mind from "anyone except the F-35" to "F-35 or Gripen". And that's just between now and 2015.

Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

Well your persistent even if you have some lose screws.

The only thing that changed was the Harper Govt losing in 2015. A fair and open competition has been run since then as Trudeau said (can't believe I am actually agreeing with that dunderhead...). Sure they said SuperBug and then not SuperBug but that was never going to change the competition timeframe. Neither has the Aussie little bug buy changed the competition. That there is only F-35 and Gripen left is about three things, the NORAD requirements meaning Rafale and Eurofigher knew they couldn't win, Saab deluded enough to think they can win and the US Govt screwing Boeings submission making it not compliant. Competition minus COVID being a bastard has been on track.

Well you're persistent even in the face of evidence.

Quoting from the Liberal manifesto of 2015 ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20151014055 ... -class.pdf
We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber. We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

Quoting form Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... rocurement
On 19 October 2015, the Liberal Party of Canada under Justin Trudeau won a majority in part on a campaign promise to not buy the F-35, but instead "one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada's defence needs".

I'm done. But anyone reading this should understand that the current PM of Canada promised not to buy the F-35, and now has a competition where the F-35 is the likely winner. I guess things change. But going back to the original question .. Canada has been trying to buy a new fighter since 2001, and has not got it done yet.

stratable · Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:23 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Harpers/Conservatives plan to order in 2016-17 my confused friend, Harpers plan not Trudeau...

Dear confused friend

The relevant metric is what the Canadian government's plans were. So far they have been (1) Buy the F-35 without a competition (2) Have a competition that excludes the F-35 and now (3) have a competition the F-35 will probably win. They've been vacillating since 2001. Even the current PM has changed his mind from "anyone except the F-35" to "F-35 or Gripen". And that's just between now and 2015.

Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

Well your persistent even if you have some lose screws.

The only thing that changed was the Harper Govt losing in 2015. A fair and open competition has been run since then as Trudeau said (can't believe I am actually agreeing with that dunderhead...). Sure they said SuperBug and then not SuperBug but that was never going to change the competition timeframe. Neither has the Aussie little bug buy changed the competition. That there is only F-35 and Gripen left is about three things, the NORAD requirements meaning Rafale and Eurofigher knew they couldn't win, Saab deluded enough to think they can win and the US Govt screwing Boeings submission making it not compliant. Competition minus COVID being a bastard has been on track.

It's also interesting to hint at a political decision being made when the currently ongoing competition was likely legally necessary from a government procurement standards point of view.
With my knowledge in procurement, I'd assume it is highly like that any Canadian government procurement must run through some form of transparent evaluation process that can be challenged in court.

SeamanBeaumont · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:21 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Well you're persistent even in the face of evidence.

Ha amigo, my sources are official Canadian Govt docs, not news reports... but yes I agree this has lived its usefulness.

SeamanBeaumont · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:23 pm

stratable wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Dear confused friend

The relevant metric is what the Canadian government's plans were. So far they have been (1) Buy the F-35 without a competition (2) Have a competition that excludes the F-35 and now (3) have a competition the F-35 will probably win. They've been vacillating since 2001. Even the current PM has changed his mind from "anyone except the F-35" to "F-35 or Gripen". And that's just between now and 2015.

Canada's fighter competition would fit well in the Indian procurement history.

Well your persistent even if you have some lose screws.

The only thing that changed was the Harper Govt losing in 2015. A fair and open competition has been run since then as Trudeau said (can't believe I am actually agreeing with that dunderhead...). Sure they said SuperBug and then not SuperBug but that was never going to change the competition timeframe. Neither has the Aussie little bug buy changed the competition. That there is only F-35 and Gripen left is about three things, the NORAD requirements meaning Rafale and Eurofigher knew they couldn't win, Saab deluded enough to think they can win and the US Govt screwing Boeings submission making it not compliant. Competition minus COVID being a bastard has been on track.

It's also interesting to hint at a political decision being made when the currently ongoing competition was likely legally necessary from a government procurement standards point of view.
With my knowledge in procurement, I'd assume it is highly like that any Canadian government procurement must run through some form of transparent evaluation process that can be challenged in court.

The Canucks introduced a "Hurt Canadian Industry clause" (which excluded Canadian bacon...) to procurement law because of the Boeing dispute. It could have been that but if Billie the Flynn is to be believed the US Govt team submitting the proposal screwed up and didn't tick a box as it were.

bikerthai · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:43 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
which excluded Canadian bacon...

Oh and don't forget the maple syrup strategic reserves and our family's favorite seasonal Canadian duck breasts found at Costco (we buy them by the cases an freeze them for the holidays)

bt

F9Animal · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:14 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Confirmation that Boeing has officially been eliminated from the competition:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... ompetition

OTTAWA — Canada has officially narrowed its decade-long hunt for a new fighter jet to two choices as the federal government confirmed U.S. aerospace giant Boeing’s Super Hornet is out of the running to replace the military’s aging CF-18s.

The announcement from Public Services and Procurement Canada came nearly a week after The Canadian Press reported the surprise news that Boeing had been told its bid for the $19-billion contract did not meet Ottawa’s requirements.

I wonder if Boeing wishes they hadn't stuck their nose in that mess? To this day, Delta Airlines still has turned its nose at Boeing, and now Canada has done the same. Sounds like Boeing is still confused and doesn't understand why. What a mess!

johns624 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:27 am

The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

This is just so much political bovine excrement. That reads like a campaign "promise" and we all know how much elected officials adhere to them. I'm sure they changed their mind when the diplomats and career military people 'splained the facts of life to them. First, it's not for Canada's defense, it's for North America. Ever heard of NORAD. Second, stealth is just as important in defense, especially when your forces will probably be outnumbered.

SeamanBeaumont · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:39 am

johns624 wrote:
Second, stealth is just as important in defense, especially when your forces will probably be outnumbered.

Ha, yes, even the neutral loving Swiss recognise this.

art · Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:24 am

2013 red flag
Gripen on red team

Gripen C versus Norwegian F-16 exercises
5:0
5:0
5:1

Exercise in Sweden

Gripen C versus F-15
2:0

Exercise in Thailand

Gripen C versus J-11, Su-27
4:0

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKt0_MHe8bk

It seems that the secret to Gripen C success is its ECM. Makes it very difficult to detect. F-35 is similarly very difficult to detect.

kitplane01 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:35 am

johns624 wrote:
The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.
This is just so much political bovine excrement. That reads like a campaign "promise" and we all know how much elected officials adhere to them. I'm sure they changed their mind when the diplomats and career military people 'splained the facts of life to them. First, it's not for Canada's defense, it's for North America. Ever heard of NORAD. Second, stealth is just as important in defense, especially when your forces will probably be outnumbered.

Trudeau was an experienced politician in 2015. You can think whatever you want of the statement, but he was informed when he wrote this, and I'm sure it was vetted by the party. I think it was an important statement, not some back-burner issue. But I'm not really knowledgeable enough to debate 2015 Canadian politics.

johns624 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:51 am

kitplane01 wrote:

Trudeau was an experienced politician in 2015.

Exactly. That means he lies through his teeth.

stratable · Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:42 pm

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Trudeau was an experienced politician in 2015.
Exactly. That means he lies through his teeth.

That's just cynical. They're holding a fair and open competition on the future RCAF fighter that can be contested in courts.

ElpinDAB · Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:10 am

I am not Canadian, so I'm not pulling for one fighter or another, but here's my analysis.

Both might be decent options, depending upon the mission. I don't really see Canada as being an aggressor with the need for multi-role bombing capability, so maybe the Gripen E would be an adequate platform. From what I have read, both would probably be ok though.

Gripen E and F-35 will both be expensive to acquire, and costs per hour seem to favor Gripen E, however F-35 costs per flight hour are highly inflated in the USAF vs estimates for other operators in Europe. This is where speculation comes into play, but basic operating costs of an F-35 vs Gripen E probably wouldn't be much different if stealth coatings weren't maintained to how the USAF apparently does. But, what's the advantage if you buy a stealth fighter that isn't nearly as stealthy as advertised? I have seen hourly operating costs as low as $35,000 reported for the F-35, but much, much higher for the USAF.

Gripen E is advertised to be incorporating many electronic countermeasures to combat stealth technology. This tech has yet to be *fully implemented into an actual Gripen E, as far as I know. So whether or not the tech is there at the moment is uncertain, and who knows what the timeline might be. It's a potent platform, but unproven. I'm sure that Sweden will soon conduct war games with neighboring Norway and their F-35's when practical. But war games only go so far.

Gripen C has already proven to be a worthy adversary in defensive roles. It has powerful A2A weapons for BVR (beyond visual range) A2A warfare. Gripen E should be able to improve upon that by being able to fly away at more than 90 degrees from the target after a BVR encounter, while still being able to detect incoming countermeasures. This is owed partially to the Gripen's low frontal radar signature, purely because of it's small size, and partially due to potent A2A missiles it employs, which are much the same as what Rafale and Eurofighter currently employ.

Gripen has a bit less success with WVR (within visual range) engagements. It has an inferior T/W ratio to most adversaries. It has great maneuverability with its close-coupled delta-canard configuration and light weight, but still lacks on power being powered by a single engine from an F-18C (or F-18E for the Gripen E). This is where tactics and pilot skill come into play alot though. It's an area of combat that was thought to be obsolete back in the 1970's, but has persisted through rare engagements where playing fields are equal.

I have yet to see a Gripen VS F-35 war game scenario.
I think that the F-35 would be nearly equal BVR, depending upon armament. Obviously an F-35 with armed for ground attack would probably be at a disadvantage against a Gripen with A2A armament. And these are the things we don't see in corporate analysis and even war games. Thanks to Switzerland for posting stats about fighter tests, but they are aiming for their own targets and constrained needs, not what might benefit another nation. National Defense needs vary widely based upon geography, history, politics, economics, various geopolitical factors, and things don't know about.

And so now, we talk about last ditch options for A2A engagements with relatively equal playing fields, where numbers now come into question. I would almost recommend "to not put all of your hens in one basket." Different fighters have different strengths and weakness. Would it be that much more expensive to operated 2 types?

ElpinDAB · Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:46 am

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
They keep talking about "up to 15" Type 26 frigates, but since their current navy is operating with 12 frigates, I don't see them building more than 10..

Off-topic, but why is Canada planning to buy that many Type 26 frigates at such a high price? That's more than the UK itself is planning to buy, and at greater price/unit. They are heavy frigates, more akin to Destroyers, and they can be configured to favor anti-air or anti-submarine warfare. Destroyers do it all, for basically the same price. $4billion+ per Type 26 is WAY more than Oz or UK is paying for theirs. If Canada is buying frigates, then just get FREMM's like the Constellation, Aquitaine, or Bergamini class frigates.
All FREMM's are under $1billion per unit, and the French/Greek FDI is under $500million/unit.

Why not buy some FREMM or FDI frigate platforms in addition to some Type 26 frigates? Despite the complexity of having more types of ships in the fleet, wouldn't that be cheaper? If you intend to utilize the Type 26 Frigate as a destroyer (do all mission) vessel, then maybe it makes sense. But if they are conscious about budget, then just make some tactical decisions in the first place, like a mixed fleet of frigates and "destroyers", vs committing to a bunch of over-priced destroyers and then backing out, leaving a hole in national defense forces. It's the hi-low model, which is why US is buying FREMM's (Constellation class frigates) to fulfill their gap that "Oliver Hazard Perry Class" Frigates left in the "low" model. Latest Burke class Destroyers are now more akin to Cruisers, but that leaves a gap for Ticonderoga Cruisers to be replaced, too late imo.

Now, sheer numbers between the US and Canadian military might arise some argument, but European, Asian, and South American Navies have been successfully operating smaller fleet sizes in their Air Forces and Navies for quite some time. France, for example, has Aquitaine class frigates (FREMM based), and LaFayette Class Destroyer, with Frégate de défense et d'intervention (FDI), almost like a frigate-capable corvette, on order. They will have 3 frigate types plus their 2 (+1) Horizon Anti-Aircraft Destroyers on inventory.

Why not adopt a similar strategy for air defense? Canada has the #9 largest gross GDP in the world. I think that their economy could support Naval surface fleet diversity for cheaper acquisition cost. Unless they are just THAT politically tied to the UK.

My point of tying this into the thread, being so off-topic, is that, with this understood, why couldn't Canada adopt a more diversified fleet strategy? Why must it be F-35 OR Gripen E? Why not Gripen E AND F-18E or F-35? That's probably what I would have done, or maybe a combination of any, like Gripen E and F-35/F-18E.

I think it would be to Canada's benefit to adopt a more diversified system of defense systems.

kitplane01 · Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:16 am

ElpinDAB wrote:
johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
They keep talking about "up to 15" Type 26 frigates, but since their current navy is operating with 12 frigates, I don't see them building more than 10..

Off-topic, but why is Canada planning to buy that many Type 26 frigates at such a high price? That's more than the UK itself is planning to buy, and at greater price/unit.

The higher price is because they want them built in Canada, and apparently Canadian builders cost more than 3x British builders. Remember the Canadian shipbuilders are only building the steel, the engines/radars/missiles/expensive_stuff all comes from outside of Canada (and presumably at the same cost as what the British pay). Canadian shipbuilders must be really really expensive.

Canada - About $5B per ship
UK - about $1.6B per ship
Australia - about $2.7B per ship

art · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:18 am

kitplane01 wrote:
ElpinDAB wrote:
johns624 wrote:

Off-topic, but why is Canada planning to buy that many Type 26 frigates at such a high price? That's more than the UK itself is planning to buy, and at greater price/unit.

The higher price is because they want them built in Canada, and apparently Canadian builders cost more than 3x British builders. Remember the Canadian shipbuilders are only building the steel, the engines/radars/missiles/expensive_stuff all comes from outside of Canada (and presumably at the same cost as what the British pay). Canadian shipbuilders must be really really expensive.

Canada - About $5B per ship
UK - about $1.6B per ship
Australia - about $2.7B per ship

Why not buy the Type 26 from UK and feed the money saved into building other ships in Canadian shipyards?

johns624 · Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:49 pm

ElpinDAB wrote:

Off-topic, but why is Canada planning to buy that many Type 26 frigates at such a high price? That's more than the UK itself is planning to buy, and at greater price/unit. They are heavy frigates, more akin to Destroyers,
Canada has the #9 largest gross GDP in the world. I think that their economy could support Naval surface fleet diversity for cheaper acquisition cost. .

The Type 26 is a frigate only in RN service. That is because the RN classifies any vessel optimized for ASW as a frigate and any built for AAW as a destroyer. They've had frigates larger than destroyers. The Australian and Canadian versions will be more versatile than the RN ones. In addition to their ASW suite, they will have a full area-defense AAW system with Aegis and a VLS loaded with SSM/ESSM. The RN boats only have point defense SeaCeptor missiles.
As far as Canada's GDP, their problem is that they've been spoiled by being geographically located next to the US. When you compare their GNP/population/armed forces against Australia or the smaller European nations, they come up wanting. That's because they have "big brother" next door. New Zealand has the same attitude, except with Australia being their big brother.

GDB · Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:23 pm

Whatever customers for the T26 put topside and inside weapons wise, for AAW/ASM missions, it was as stated, designed primarily for ASW.
Which is also the main mission the RCN will have for theirs.
Russian subs are as likely to encroach Canadian waters as any other NATO members, the Arctic being an area of great interest to them as shown by their deployments and new surface assets they are building and deploying.
The latter is what the Canadian patrol vessels/icebreakers keep a watch on, the former require modern ASW frigates, why not go for the one most optimized for that role.

See what's missing? The expeditionary warfare element, the reality is that Canada took part in Gulf War 1, Afghanistan and other operations and there will be less appetite for more with the Canadian electorate, something to consider when berating in a knee jerk way politicians, who put them there?
There is scant support for more of these in more militarily 'active' nations too, witness the events playing out in Afghanistan this year.

With the NORAD requirement, when it was set up the RCAF operated a dissimilar type to the USAF, the CF-100, which undermines the whole 'what about operating the Gripen within NORAD argument', (this usually prompts the whole 'we were betrayed' line, often blaming the US, for it's planned replacement the CF-105 never entering service, which tends to forget that once, as most brutally shown by Sputnik, everyone axed advanced interceptors such as the F-108, YF-12A, Fairey Delta 3, since the advanced high speed bombers they were meant to counter also were axed, not least in the USSR by Khruschev as well as existing bomber production being limited on both sides).

So I cannot see why it would be a problem operating the Gripen in that role.
Then also as mentioned, the political angle, the US has not gone out of it's way in the last few years to make a case politically for a US aircraft in Canada, not least due to their actions in the aviation sector that were hostile, or regular business as the Boeing of recent times might see it.

That's why if I was a betting person, my money would be on Gripen.
There is always more to a major, expensive and covered heavily by the media defence procurement than claims by vendors, price comparisons between the types, a general 'Top Trumps' way of judging different types.

SeamanBeaumont · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:17 pm

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Trudeau was an experienced politician in 2015.
Exactly. That means he lies through his teeth.

Trudeau merely saw the F-35 as a point of distinction with an electorate that was tired of the conservatives who'd been in power nearly 10 years. Trudeau knows nothing about Defence and defence is less than a minor issue in Canada politically.

SeamanBeaumont · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:19 pm

ElpinDAB wrote:
I am not Canadian, so I'm not pulling for one fighter or another, but here's my analysis.

Both might be decent options, depending upon the mission. I don't really see Canada as being an aggressor with the need for multi-role bombing capability, so maybe the Gripen E would be an adequate platform. From what I have read, both would probably be ok though.

Gripen E and F-35 will both be expensive to acquire, and costs per hour seem to favor Gripen E, however F-35 costs per flight hour are highly inflated in the USAF vs estimates for other operators in Europe. This is where speculation comes into play, but basic operating costs of an F-35 vs Gripen E probably wouldn't be much different if stealth coatings weren't maintained to how the USAF apparently does. But, what's the advantage if you buy a stealth fighter that isn't nearly as stealthy as advertised? I have seen hourly operating costs as low as $35,000 reported for the F-35, but much, much higher for the USAF.

Gripen E is advertised to be incorporating many electronic countermeasures to combat stealth technology. This tech has yet to be *fully implemented into an actual Gripen E, as far as I know. So whether or not the tech is there at the moment is uncertain, and who knows what the timeline might be. It's a potent platform, but unproven. I'm sure that Sweden will soon conduct war games with neighboring Norway and their F-35's when practical. But war games only go so far.

Gripen C has already proven to be a worthy adversary in defensive roles. It has powerful A2A weapons for BVR (beyond visual range) A2A warfare. Gripen E should be able to improve upon that by being able to fly away at more than 90 degrees from the target after a BVR encounter, while still being able to detect incoming countermeasures. This is owed partially to the Gripen's low frontal radar signature, purely because of it's small size, and partially due to potent A2A missiles it employs, which are much the same as what Rafale and Eurofighter currently employ.

Gripen has a bit less success with WVR (within visual range) engagements. It has an inferior T/W ratio to most adversaries. It has great maneuverability with its close-coupled delta-canard configuration and light weight, but still lacks on power being powered by a single engine from an F-18C (or F-18E for the Gripen E). This is where tactics and pilot skill come into play alot though. It's an area of combat that was thought to be obsolete back in the 1970's, but has persisted through rare engagements where playing fields are equal.

I have yet to see a Gripen VS F-35 war game scenario.
I think that the F-35 would be nearly equal BVR, depending upon armament. Obviously an F-35 with armed for ground attack would probably be at a disadvantage against a Gripen with A2A armament. And these are the things we don't see in corporate analysis and even war games. Thanks to Switzerland for posting stats about fighter tests, but they are aiming for their own targets and constrained needs, not what might benefit another nation. National Defense needs vary widely based upon geography, history, politics, economics, various geopolitical factors, and things don't know about.

And so now, we talk about last ditch options for A2A engagements with relatively equal playing fields, where numbers now come into question. I would almost recommend "to not put all of your hens in one basket." Different fighters have different strengths and weakness. Would it be that much more expensive to operated 2 types?

The Gripen E is a niche product for one user. If the report of F-35 winning Finland is true then it should be clear to all which way Canada will go.

Also the Canucks cannot afford to operate two aircraft for the same budget. Two types means duplicating all the support infrastructure without any of the benefits. One airframe means 88 and do what Canada wants, two airframes means they need approx 120 to sustain the same amount of airframes.

johns624 · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:28 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Also the Canucks cannot afford to operate two aircraft for the same budget. Two types means duplicating all the support infrastructure without any of the benefits. One airframe means 88 and do what Canada wants, two airframes means they need approx 120 to sustain the same amount of airframes.

If Finland is buying 64, and only has 1/6 the GNP and population of Canada, then Canada fretting about the cost of only 24 more makes them look cheap. While I know the Canadian Navy is considerably larger than Finland's, their armies are roughly the same size, with Finland having many more armoured vehicles.

SeamanBeaumont · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:38 pm

johns624 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Also the Canucks cannot afford to operate two aircraft for the same budget. Two types means duplicating all the support infrastructure without any of the benefits. One airframe means 88 and do what Canada wants, two airframes means they need approx 120 to sustain the same amount of airframes.

If Finland is buying 64, and only has 1/6 the GNP and population of Canada, then Canada fretting about the cost of only 24 more makes them look cheap. While I know the Canadian Navy is considerably larger than Finland's, their armies are roughly the same size, with Finland having many more armoured vehicles.

For the same budget...

No Canuck Liberal Govt is going to increase defence spending when they can just buy off more voters with social spending. The Canucks cannot do both NOZRAD and NATO with a mixed fleet of 88 aircraft, they need more aircraft for the same available which the budget doesn’t allow.

johns624 · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:45 pm

The more you feel threatened by a perceived adversary, the more in focus defense spending becomes. Not speaking of just Canada here, but many countries.

SeamanBeaumont · Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:53 pm

johns624 wrote:
The more you feel threatened by a perceived adversary, the more in focus defense spending becomes. Not speaking of just Canada here, but many countries.

Sure but the military can only buy what it can afford within its politically assigned budget. I agree with your statement the Canucks are enjoying their bacon and donuts off the back of US and NATO dominance.

johns624 · Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:41 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The more you feel threatened by a perceived adversary, the more in focus defense spending becomes. Not speaking of just Canada here, but many countries.

Sure but the military can only buy what it can afford within its politically assigned budget. I agree with your statement the Canucks are enjoying their bacon and donuts off the back of US and NATO dominance.

Sure, I agree. It's just that I take a dim view of a country that doesn't want to afford something vs those who actually can't afford it.

stratable · Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:39 am

johns624 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The more you feel threatened by a perceived adversary, the more in focus defense spending becomes. Not speaking of just Canada here, but many countries.

Sure but the military can only buy what it can afford within its politically assigned budget. I agree with your statement the Canucks are enjoying their bacon and donuts off the back of US and NATO dominance.
Sure, I agree. It's just that I take a dim view of a country that doesn't want to afford something vs those who actually can't afford it.

To add a Canadian perspective to this, I think it'll be the F35. Because it's the pragmatic choice. Much like defense spending is a pragmatic choice in this country.
With my limited understanding, the new frigates and the amount ordered make sense in terms of the arctic becoming more important. Subs are also being overhauled.
Hence, big money is being spent there right now.
The F35 is the future-proof platform. With the amount of customers, production and high-end upgrades will be guaranteed for years to come. If you need more, order more.
Which might happen when the artic gets busier in the next few decades. Canada inquired about nuclear subs in the past but got turned down by the US.
I just bring this up because in the end the focus for Canada seems to be on trying to use resources wisely but not being shy about trying to get what you need.
Spending your money outside of the military should boost your economic capability so you can spend even more money when you actually have to.
Personally, I don't have an issue with actually meeting the 2% of GDP rule though. If that's what you agreed to do, you should honour it. - but that's a discussion of politics I guess.
For now, 88 F35 seem to be doing the job.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net