Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I still expect we haven't seen the last of the Rafale in de Canadian context. "NORAD" isn't a magical wall that can never be pulled down into a workable compromise.

This isn't 1983 & the French are on the fence.

Participation of Canadian industry in the Airbus/Dassault next gen stealth fighter can add up to the increasingly succesfull A220 program.

Keesje, the only way a Rafale can enter the competition is if the current competition is scrapped completely and restarted. While that is possible it is highly highly unlikely, the can has been pushed down the road too many times. Dassault withdrew and as per the conditions of the current tender they cannot re-enter.

Even then, the longer the competition is delayed the more likely an F-35 win as the F-35 only gets cheaper and more capable compared to its competitors. Any nation today who banked on FCAS coming in on time or being able to offer the industrial work that is available for the F-35 program is fooling themselves...

The purchase procedure is not stronger than (changing) politics, as we know and have seen in this project also.

keesje wrote:

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I still expect we haven't seen the last of the Rafale in de Canadian context. "NORAD" isn't a magical wall that can never be pulled down into a workable compromise.

This isn't 1983 & the French are on the fence.

Participation of Canadian industry in the Airbus/Dassault next gen stealth fighter can add up to the increasingly succesfull A220 program.

Keesje, the only way a Rafale can enter the competition is if the current competition is scrapped completely and restarted. While that is possible it is highly highly unlikely, the can has been pushed down the road too many times. Dassault withdrew and as per the conditions of the current tender they cannot re-enter.

Even then, the longer the competition is delayed the more likely an F-35 win as the F-35 only gets cheaper and more capable compared to its competitors. Any nation today who banked on FCAS coming in on time or being able to offer the industrial work that is available for the F-35 program is fooling themselves...

The purchase procedure is not stronger than (changing) politics, as we know and have seen in this project also.

How’s that working out for you Keesje?
1. Trudeau says we won’t buy F-35 but the F-35 is now likely the favourite to win the competition.
2. Canada could have easily removed the F-35 from the competition by stating a requirement for two engines, but because it is an open and fair competition it couldn’t. That would have also removed the final remaining Eurocanard.
3. Canada could have politically removed the SH from the competition because of Bombardier issues, but it didn’t and now the SH is clearly the second favourite to win the selection.
4. Because of an MOU signed to participate in the JSF program Canada couldn’t exclude the F-35 due to industry offset clauses. Politically the Trudeau Government could have withdrawn from the JSF partnership, making the F-35 cost potentially higher and therefore giving other aircraft a better chance but they didn’t because the loss of industrial work would have sent a terrible political message.
5. Even if Canada had politically been successful in excluding the F-35, Dassault and Eurofighter would still have withdrawn because they wouldn’t have been able to meet NORAD requirements within a cost structure that was competitive or likely within the budgetary cap for Canada. The only way those airframes were ever going to be competitive is if no US airframe was available for selection. That is another political fail.

Time to wake up to reality Keesje, political issues as TObound has also pointed out are no longer a factor in this competition. In this case yes the purchase procedure has clearly demonstrated it is stronger than changing politics.

Ozair wrote:

Time to wake up to reality Keesje, political issues as TObound has also pointed out are no longer a factor in this competition. In this case yes the purchase procedure has clearly demonstrated it is stronger than changing politics.

At the end of the day, it's still politicians who provide a budget, who sign the contracts, who are the public face of the purchase, and who put their career (as politicians) on the line. There is no automatism. Deciding is not the job of beaurocrats.
On the other hand, the requirements are reviewed by politicians as well. Clearly, the competition favors the F-35. Somebody didn't see the contradiction between that and saying "we won't buy the F-35". Probably a sucessful politician. At least Canada now knows that they got the best offers from all competitors, and has no reason to complain about the price again.

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Time to wake up to reality Keesje, political issues as TObound has also pointed out are no longer a factor in this competition. In this case yes the purchase procedure has clearly demonstrated it is stronger than changing politics.

At the end of the day, it's still politicians who provide a budget, who sign the contracts, who are the public face of the purchase, and who put their career (as politicians) on the line. There is no automatism. Deciding is not the job of beaurocrats.

Deciding is the job of bureaucrats, that is why Governments employ tender evaluation teams full of subject matter experts, and few if any politicians put their careers on the line when it comes to defence purchases. No one remembers the individual politicians who sign for the equipment, especially given it is often years later when the equipment is actually delivered.

mxaxai wrote:

On the other hand, the requirements are reviewed by politicians as well.

No mate, that is most certainly not the case, there isn't a politician in the western world who reviews the requirements. They might read the two page overview but to read requirements documents that are literally hundreds and sometimes thousands of pages is a clearly wrong.

mxaxai wrote:

Clearly, the competition favors the F-35.

LOL, how does the competition favour the F-35? If you mean the competition favours the most capable aircraft then yes you are correct. I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing to want the best aircraft for your military and in this case also the one that comes at the cheapest cost.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

On the other hand, the requirements are reviewed by politicians as well.

No mate, that is most certainly not the case, there isn't a politician in the western world who reviews the requirements. They might read the two page overview but to read requirements documents that are literally hundreds and sometimes thousands of pages is a clearly wrong.

So why do we have elected politicians if they aren't held responsible for the decisions they make? Politicians are the public face of such transactions, and the only thing a politician cares about is getting reelected. Do you really believe that they can't afford more than five minutes to study what they're spending billions of tax monies on?

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Clearly, the competition favors the F-35.

LOL, how does the competition favour the F-35? If you mean the competition favours the most capable aircraft then yes you are correct. I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing to want the best aircraft for your military and in this case also the one that comes at the cheapest cost.

There is no contradiction here. It's just that a brief look at the specs on Wikipedia, or this forum, would've returned the same results for much less cost. Why say "We won't buy X" and then create a competition where X is the obvious winner?

mxaxai wrote:

So why do we have elected politicians if they aren't held responsible for the decisions they make?

What knowledge or skill do most politicians bring to their portfolios? Do you think most of them, or even a few of them know the first thing about in this case defence? Do you think if they decided to read a thousand page requirements document that they could actually add any value?

Tell me, what experience in the defence sector does Ursula von der Leyen bring? How about Florence Parly? Robert Wallace for the UK at least served as a Captain in the British Army but that hardly qualifies him to review and comment of the requirements for a fighter jet. The Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Saijin served with the Canadian Army as well before moving to policing. His experience in the Army still doesn’t qualify him to make informed comment on a thousand page fighter jet requirements document.

mxaxai wrote:

Politicians are the public face of such transactions, and the only thing a politician cares about is getting reelected. Do you really believe that they can't afford more than five minutes to study what they're spending billions of tax monies on?

Again, Defence departments employ large numbers of highly skilled and knowledgeable staff to make recommendations that a Minister would approve. Not only is a minister busy with public engagements, actually appearing in parliament but also the width and breadth of managing a department that is often larger than most fortune 500 companies. A defence minister does more than just sign acquisition docs, they manage the affairs of current military deployments, changing legislation, are concerned with raise, train and sustain efforts, are involved in inquiries about things going wrong, preparing the next years military budget, promotions etc. To expect them to be all over every aspect of a procurement, even one as large as a fighter jet, is simply not possible.

mxaxai wrote:

Why say "We won't buy X" and then create a competition where X is the obvious winner?

The answer to that is very simple. It is easy to say “we won’t buy X” when you are in opposition trying to win majority government. It is a far different matter to then actually run a competition, or manage the budget etc according to legislation and established Government policy when you are in Government…

A poorly researched article in the F-35 and its visit to Ottawa and how this impacts the Canadian fighter competition.

The high-speed hard sell: why the F-35 is coming to a Canadian air show

The F-35, the warplane Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised not to buy four years ago, touched down in Ottawa on Wednesday — on the eve of a federal election — as one of the leading contenders in the competition to replace the air force's aging CF-18 jet fighters.

The stealth jet's demonstration team will perform this weekend at an air show in Gatineau, Que., giving many of the capital's movers and shakers their first up-close look at an aircraft that has consumed a lot of oxygen in Canadian politics.

During the last election, the Liberals famously (or infamously) promised not to buy the F-35 and said they would opt instead for a cheaper aircraft, using the savings to refit the navy.

The jet's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin — the world's largest defence contractor — is among the bidders in the $19 billion competition launched by the Liberals in July to supply Canada with 88 jets. Lockheed Martin is making its case both behind closed doors and through a marketing campaign that includes billboards throughout the capital region and a heavy social media presence.

...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-ca ... -1.5270600

Interesting to note that Saab don’t consider the tender to be rigged I favour of the F-35,

That led to speculation about whether the other European competitor — Saab — would also drop out. The company's CEO, in an interview with Swedish media a few weeks ago, said his company does not believe the fix is in for the F-35.
"In the last process that was closed, we had the same view, that is, it was very rigged for U.S. F-35," said Hakan Buskhe, who was quoted in July by Dagensindustri (Di), a business and finance publication.
"The countries that have chosen F-35 have had almost the same procurement document. We do not have the same view today, but we have the view that it is an open procurement."

Ozair wrote:

…

For heaven's sake, in democratic countries the politicians, representing the electorate, have the final say. And should have.

The bureaucrats give the facts, and the politicians evaluate the facts, compare with their values and interests, make compromises and finally decisions. It is not a perfect system as many politicians (if not the most, at least where I live) are inept and untrustable, but it is the very best system tried so far. Who misses a military dictatorship?

Making major decisions of military hardware is never a purely technical issue, never. There are always several social, civil, economic and political aspects beyond the military expertise. In the best cases these are taken into account beforehand, incorporated in the rules given in the RFB, but situations change. Even the desired capability is a political issues as it depends on the mission profiles whose emphases are at least partly political.

The democracy does have a drawback as even honest politicians may make superficial decisions depending partly on whose face they like, who has insulted them and who pays most on their district. And the parliament has a full authority to make even stupid decisions, like changing the rules afterwards. It requires just a simple majority, as it is not a constitutional issue. But there is no significantly better alternative on this planet (details on democracies may vary).

This maybe connected to the current fighter competition:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/abbotsf ... ring-plant

US firm considering $830 million aircraft manufacturing plant in Lower Mainland
Kenneth Chan
|
Sep 12 2019, 5:35 pm

BC’s Lower Mainland is in the running as a possible site for the development of a new major aircraft manufacturing plant with the potential to employ thousands of people.

In an economic investment and growth update, a report by staff with the City of Abbotsford notes the municipality is being considered by an unnamed US aerospace firm “as a Canadian site” for the new plant.

There are two development options of varying scale; the smaller plant would produce a $125-million investment with 7,000 new jobs, while the large plant would result in an $830-million investment and 10,000 or more jobs.

Such a facility would of course require a very significantly-sized site, but no locations have been publicly identified at this time. The plant would certainly bolster the Fraser Valley’s economy, and likely create a further upward demand in housing.

The report will be reviewed by city council next week, and the next round of engagement is scheduled to occur in January 2020.

Major US aerospace firms include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Gulfstream Aerospace, and Boom Supersonic.

AFAIK, the only major aerospace company in the region is Cascades Aerospace, which has ties to Lockheed Martin; they are only one of two Lockheed Martin-approved service and heavy maintenance centers for the C-130 Hercules. I can easily see Lockheed Martin expanding their presence in the region due to the ties.

The article clarifies a few facts but also gets a few things wrong.

First the assertion that Airbus, Saab or Dassault had no access to the requirements for the CAN/US system used for NORAD. It would certainly be possible to detail what is required within the tender documents without giving away any classified information, or that the respective bidders could hire staff who have sufficient clearance to access that information and make a determination.

Second that stealth is not useful for the NORAD mission. Stealth is most certainly not simply an offensive strike advantage but plays a big role in OCA and DCA. Being able to detect, track and engage an adversary without being observed remains the most successful A2A tactic and the F-35, with its stealth features and advanced sensors, brings that huge advantage to the NORAD mission.

Will other firms withdraw from fighter jet competition leaving F-35 last plane standing?

Shortly before he retired, Pat Finn, the Department of National Defence’s procurement chief, told this newspaper there was always a risk that some companies would drop out of the future fighter jet competition but that extra efforts had been made to ensure the process was fair. “We’re not getting all kinds of signals that (companies are) losing interest” in bidding, Finn said in an interview July 23.

On Aug. 30, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence and Airbus Defence and Space informed the Canadian government of their decision to withdraw from Canada’s future fighter competition. Airbus had been offering Canada the Eurofighter.

At the time the Canadian Press news service reported the Eurofighter withdrawal was a surprise.

It wasn’t.

...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... e-standing

Skies Magazine has this article from Alan Stephenson (Col ret’d) up regarding the CF-18 replacement program:

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/errat ... ment-plan/

Boeing is still committed to the Canadian competition and has submitted its proposal to meet the security requirements for NORAD Two eyes information.

Boeing confirms it is taking part in Canada’s future fighter jet competition

Boeing officials tell Defence Watch that the company will indeed be bidding on Canada’s future fighter jet program.

The firm will offer the Super Hornet for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

There had been questions in the defence and aerospace industry about whether Boeing would proceed in the competition as concerns mount the procurement is rigged towards the F-35.

But a Boeing official told Defence Watch on Thursday that the company is “100 per cent in.”

The firm has submitted to the federal government the required information that outlines how it will meet various security requirements so the aircraft can operate within the U.S.-Canadian system.

In July Boeing released a statement that it was still participating in the process but it had yet to make any final decisions on whether to take part in the Canadian competition. “We look forward to continuing to provide comments, reviewing the final RFP, and determining next steps at that time,” Boeing noted at the time.

...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... ompetition

johns624 wrote:

Canada just keeps kicking the can down the road, both with the fighters and the navy frigates.

Canada KNOW good and Damn Well that if they get in a Scrape? The USA will be there in a flash either with the TFW from Alaska or the wings near the Canadian Border including McChord ,and across the US North. No way in Hell the US would Let Canada be in a Jam and they KNOW it !! And that's With or without Trump!!

Tried to skim through this thread and couldn't find anything on it. Any idea why the F15X is not in the mix?

stratable wrote:

Tried to skim through this thread and couldn't find anything on it. Any idea why the F15X is not in the mix?

Same reason Canada rejected it in the early 80s, it is too costly for them to acquire and operate. Boeing had the option to offer an F-15 derivative, the X is really a very new development compared to how long this competition has been going on, but with the RCAF operating the classic Hornet it makes far more sense to offer the SH.

Boeing hasn't offered the F-15X, or any F-15 derivative, to any of the other competitions going on or just completed, for example Finland, Switzerland, India, Belgium, Japan (which was an F-15 operator but was offered the SH in 2011) etc except for South Korea. Where it has won is sole source selection prestige victories, such as Qatar or with existing operators like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Boeing and global militaries don't see a long term future in the F-15, Boeing at least does with the SH. Maybe now the development and likely operation by the USAF of the X changes that but I doubt it.

Canada won’t be conducting a fly-off of the three remaining competitors for its fighter competition. If they wanted they could probably seek some information from other operators on how the aircraft perform in cold weather conditions but Canada has a pretty good awareness of the conditions they will operate in and would likely only confirm what they already know.

Unlike Finland, Canada nixes cold-weather tests, fly-off among competing fighter jets

Canada won’t conduct a fly-off between fighter jets competing to become the country’s new warplane nor conduct testing to see how such aircraft perform under cold weather conditions.

The decision not to proceed with such tests under Canada’s $19-billion future fighter procurement program stands in contrast to Finland, which is considering the same aircraft as Canada, for its new jet fleet. Each competing aerospace company is required to provide Finland with two aircraft to test at low temperatures and be evaluated in real world operating conditions.

Public Services and Procurement Canada has confirmed that Canada will not do any fly-offs among competing jet or tests for cold-weather operations like Finland has underway.

“We do not have plans for an exercise of this nature,” stated department spokeswoman Stéfanie Hamel.

Finland and Canada are considering the Boeing Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen. The Finnish Air Force is also testing the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which pulled out of the Canadian competition because of worries the process was rigged to favour the F-35.

Finland hopes to buy 64 aircraft. Canada will purchase 88 aircraft.

Canadian aerospace industry representatives say the competing companies as well as allied air forces could provide Canada with results from tests they have conducted on the competing aircraft.

Finland could have taken the same route but its procurement staff want to ensure the country is getting value for money since the project will cost around $14 billion.

...

https://www.saltwire.com/news/canada/un ... ts-398359/

More money being thrown at the existing fleet of CF-18's to keep them operational:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighte ... -1.5426860

The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight while the country waits for replacement jets, which were originally expected years ago.

The extra money comes after the federal auditor general warned in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets risked being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008 and will result in new weapons, sensors and defensive systems for the fleet.

Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimated the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia.

"Canada has a history of upgrading their fighter aircraft," Meinzinger said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press. "It's a consequence of the fact that over time, threats ... advance as technology advances."

Thirty-six out of the air force's 76 CF-18s and 18 soon-to-be-delivered secondhand Australian F-18s will receive the full suite of upgrades.

Probably no other reason for the delay other than typical Government timeframes but have a sneaking suspicion that this delay is related to the submission by Saab for the Gripen. Potentially they are trying to keep the Gripen in the competition but it may struggle to meet the security and interoperability requirements and therefore will likely not submit a final bid.

Fighter jet competitors still wait to hear if they meet Canada’s interoperability requirements

Firms competing in Canada’s future fighter jet program have not yet heard back from the federal government on the security and interoperability requirements documentation they filed at the beginning of October as a prelude to submit their bids.

The companies submitted the paperwork in which they show how they can meet Canada’s requirements in the area of security and interoperability. Public Services and Procurement Canada was supposed to inform the firms whether or not they met the criteria; without that approval submitting a bid for the $19 billion fighter jet program is pretty much a waste of time.

Some aerospace industry officials are questioning why there is a delay considering bids are due at the end of March. Their argument is that the security requirements/interoperability documents are pretty straight forward so they wonder why it has taken more than three months so far for PSPC to review the material. Others have questioned whether the delay means that the lone European fighter jet in the competition, the Gripen, might be having trouble meeting the requirements which are geared towards interoperability/security requirements with the U.S.

But PSPC spokeswoman Michèle LaRose tells Defence Watch that feedback for the aerospace firms is coming. It is expected by the end of this month.

“The feedback provided to suppliers is intended to help them respond to the Request for Proposals with offers that meet Canada’s security requirements,” she noted in an email.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... quirements

The RCAF have used the opportunity to fly back an ex RAAF Hornet after using their C-17 to deliver supplies to assist Australian Firefighting efforts. Obviously the picture is from the Canadian Base where the jet is being unloaded, not too much snow in Australia right now…
C-17 Brings Home F-18

The RCAF made the most of its show of support for the Australian firefighting effort last month. The C-17 transport that carried supplies to the southern hemisphere came back with reinforcements for the RCAF. Tucked in the cavernous cargo hold for the return trip was one of the 25 retired Royal Australian Air Force F-18s the RCAF has purchased to shore up its fighter forces while it waits for new equipment. The RCAF posted images of a crew unloading the fighter on Friday.

The RCAF paid $90 million for the 25 Hornets but only 18 will be flown. The others will be used for parts. The RAAF has phased out its F-18s as it converts fighter squadrons to the F-35. Canada is years away from flying a new fighter. The F-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet and Saab Gripen are competing to become Canada’s next frontline fighter.

https://canadianaviator.com/c-17-brings-home-f-18/

What do you mean no snow in Australia? It’s only 40 degrees!

Of course that’s not snow, that’s ash from bush fires.

Another delay to the Canadian Fighter procurement with the vendors given three additional months to sort out their final bids. Rumours surrounding this are that it will give Saab an additional three months to sort out their plan for the NORAD Two eyes information sharing issue.

Canada's quest to buy new fighter jets delayed another three months

Canada’s long-running effort to buy new fighter jets is facing another delay.

The federal government announced Tuesday it is giving jet makers another three months to submit their proposals for replacing Canada’s aging CF-18s. Companies were to have submitted their bids at the end of March but will now have until June.

The move is to ensure the government receives high-quality bids for the estimated $19-billion contract, federal Procurement Minister Anita Anand said in a statement. Canada is planning to buy 88 new fighters to replace the CF-18s, which are now nearly 40 years old.

"The government set out an aggressive timeline to implement this very complex, high-value procurement," Anand said.

"While we understand the importance of this procurement for our women and men in uniform, our focus is on moving the process forward as quickly as we can, while ensuring that all bidders have the time they need to put forward their best proposal."

The government did not say why the three companies need extra time to prepare good bids.

...

https://www.nsnews.com/canada-s-quest-t ... 1.24083478

IMO Typhoon was the best option other than the F-35, and with that out this is Lockheed's to lose. The only way the Super Hornet has a chance is in "advanced super hornet" guise with the conformal tanks, stealth pod and upgraded engines. I don't see that happening. Canada should only consider the Gripen NG if it's guaranteed getting the upgraded F414 which also won't happen.
This is going to the F-35.

My dream pick however would be an F119 powered F-16XL...

[quote="744SPX“]

My dream pick however would be an F119 powered F-16XL...[/quote]

I suspect an F414 Gripen isn’t as far behind an F119 F-16XL as you might think, as mooted an issue as it is.

744SPX wrote:

IMO Typhoon was the best option other than the F-35, and with that out this is Lockheed's to lose. The only way the Super Hornet has a chance is in "advanced super hornet" guise with the conformal tanks, stealth pod and upgraded engines. I don't see that happening.

That is what they're offering:

https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ornet.page

The cost to procure and maintain the aircraft is lower than other platforms, making it an affordable, total life cycle solution to operate for decades. With the lowest operational flight hour costs among all US tactical aircraft in production

https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ornet.page

I don't believe the operational cost is lower than F-16.

Price-wise: who would be paying dev cost? If Canada, the cost of SH would rise a lot.

I find it hard to believe too but that point is mooted regardless.

art wrote:

The cost to procure and maintain the aircraft is lower than other platforms, making it an affordable, total life cycle solution to operate for decades. With the lowest operational flight hour costs among all US tactical aircraft in production

https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ornet.page

I don't believe the operational cost is lower than F-16.

I don't know what data they used to generate this but some comparative costs from a few years ago (2016). F-18E/F looks very cheap compared to other airframes, is also the newest mature aircraft with a sufficient number in service to make the calculation likely worthwhile. Not sure how a Growler is less cost to operate per hour either, they have probably taken out all the costs associated with maintaining associated systems/pods.

art wrote:

Price-wise: who would be paying dev cost? If Canada, the cost of SH would rise a lot.

Blk III is being funded by the USN. I don't think that Canada, or Filand or Switzerland, will be required to contribute to the dev costs if they acquire SH. What they will pay is the FMS fees associated with the transaction.

Saab appear to be going all the way with the Canadian competition. They have released their “Gripen for Canada” team which includes the three major industrial partners they plan to use.

Saab Announces ‘Gripen for Canada Team’

Saab is bidding for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) and today announced that leading Canadian aerospace companies IMP Aerospace & Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada and GE Aviation are the ‘Gripen for Canada Team’.

Saab is offering Gripen E, with the support of the Swedish government, for Canada’s future fighter requirement of 88 new aircraft to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s existing CF-18 Hornet fighter fleet. The Canadian Request for Proposal requires companies to deliver high-quality industrial and technological benefits, such as Saab has demonstrated with Gripen for Brazil and is offering for Finland and India’s fighter requirements.

Saab’s bid to the Government of Canada will include a comprehensive proposal to deliver those benefits, with high quality jobs and technology, adding greater economic value and knowledge across Canadian industry coast to coast. Today’s announcement is the first step toward achieving this offer with IMP Aerospace & Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada and GE Aviation as the ‘Gripen for Canada Team’.

...

https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... nada-team/

Given that Canada is looking for 88 jets would there be value in having two subfleets, say 40 F35 and 48 Gripen (or say 40 F35 48 SH, just making something up here)?
Does that make sense economically (for Canada and the manufacturers) and militarily (in terms of capabilities required)?
The initial purchase price is likely lower for the Gripen than for the F35. Not sure about useful life, maintenance, long-term support, etc.
You may not always need a F35, especially for patrolling the Arctic?

jmt18325 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

IMO Typhoon was the best option other than the F-35, and with that out this is Lockheed's to lose. The only way the Super Hornet has a chance is in "advanced super hornet" guise with the conformal tanks, stealth pod and upgraded engines. I don't see that happening.

That is what they're offering:

https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ornet.page

I stand corrected. The SH probably does have a chance after all. Not sure how quickly the EPE engines will be ready though. Has an E/F test flown with them yet?

stratable wrote:

Given that Canada is looking for 88 jets would there be value in having two subfleets, say 40 F35 and 48 Gripen (or say 40 F35 48 SH, just making something up here)?
Does that make sense economically (for Canada and the manufacturers) and militarily (in terms of capabilities required)?

Good question and already answered a while ago by an RCAF study available here, army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=120786.0;attach=53025 You have to access it via this link because when Trudeau came into Office they pulled from the RCAF website a lot of these reports.

The intent of the study was really to examine the cost implications of operating a high end jet for high threat operations such as NATO commitments, it is really referencing the F-35, and a low threat jet, it is really referencing the Gripen, for NORAD commitments. The suggestion was the high end jet would cost more to acquire and a low threat jet which would cost less to acquire and between them they could fulfil the required NATO/NORAD mission expectations.

The result of the study, which is well worth a read, is the following,

The previous section showed a mixed fleet of 74 aircraft does not deliver the same capability as a single fleet of 65 aircraft. This section examines known cost considerations in an effort to compare the single and mixed fleets. Despite having a sub-fleet of lower cost aircraft, the loss of economies of scale combined with the cost of duplication may result in a mixed fleet that is more expensive than its single fleet counterpart as was shown in a recent estimate of sustainment costs of future Australian fighter fleets (Ref. R).

Figure 1 presents a fitting analogy that helps one understand that reducing acquisition costs alone is completely insufficient to ensure mixed fleet costs are comparable to those of a single fleet. The studies at Refs. S and T provide evidence that is consistent with the existence of significant fixed operating, support, and infrastructure costs associated with any aircraft fleet. In the case of a mixed fleet, extra costs result from duplication: infrastructure; aircraft maintenance support equipment; operational and maintenance training; supply lines; project management; engineering support; aircraft certification; test and evaluation; storage and management of spare parts, weapons, and expendables; and electronic warfare and systems reprogramming are just some of the many sources of duplication amongst the two sub-fleets.

...

This report compared a single fleet of aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NATO and NORAD commitments, against a mixed fleet consisting of these higher capability, higher cost aircraft combined with lower capability, lower cost aircraft.

The analysis found that a mixed fleet of 38 higher capability aircraft, chosen for their ability to fulfill the most challenging of the NATO missions, and 34 lower capability aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NORAD obligations, could not provide the same capability as the single fleet of 65 higher capability aircraft.

stratable wrote:

The initial purchase price is likely lower for the Gripen than for the F35. Not sure about useful life, maintenance, long-term support, etc.
You may not always need a F35, especially for patrolling the Arctic?

So the problem with your suggestion is that today we know the F-35 is cheaper to acquire than a Gripen E. The F-35 may cost more to sustain than a Gripen but that is a much more debatable question than the acquisition cost. The F-35 will have a fleet size likely ten times that of the Gripen as well as require less intensive capability upgrades over the life of type to maintain capability as well as being an overall more capable aircraft, range, payload, sensors etc, to begin with.

If patrolling the Arctic for air threat is the requirement ironically the F-35 is actually a better option than any of the other jets. The MADL data link brings with it significant advantages, one of which is the F-35 formation in flight is now much more widely dispersed. Instead of being ten miles from your wingman, standard separation for western 4th gen aircraft, you are now sitting at seventy miles away, all while sharing and fusing all the information each jet is detecting across the whole flight via MADL. Now those four F-35s you sent up to patrol the Arctic have a spread of 210 nm between them, with the corresponding enhanced radar coverage, compared to 30 nm for the other aircraft.

744SPX wrote:

jmt18325 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

IMO Typhoon was the best option other than the F-35, and with that out this is Lockheed's to lose. The only way the Super Hornet has a chance is in "advanced super hornet" guise with the conformal tanks, stealth pod and upgraded engines. I don't see that happening.

That is what they're offering:

https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ornet.page

I stand corrected. The SH probably does have a chance after all. Not sure how quickly the EPE engines will be ready though. Has an E/F test flown with them yet?

The EPE is not funded, it is not part of the Blk III SH upgrade.

Ozair wrote:

stratable wrote:

Given that Canada is looking for 88 jets would there be value in having two subfleets, say 40 F35 and 48 Gripen (or say 40 F35 48 SH, just making something up here)?
Does that make sense economically (for Canada and the manufacturers) and militarily (in terms of capabilities required)?

Good question and already answered a while ago by an RCAF study available here, army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=120786.0;attach=53025 You have to access it via this link because when Trudeau came into Office they pulled from the RCAF website a lot of these reports.

The intent of the study was really to examine the cost implications of operating a high end jet for high threat operations such as NATO commitments, it is really referencing the F-35, and a low threat jet, it is really referencing the Gripen, for NORAD commitments. The suggestion was the high end jet would cost more to acquire and a low threat jet which would cost less to acquire and between them they could fulfil the required NATO/NORAD mission expectations.

The result of the study, which is well worth a read, is the following,

The previous section showed a mixed fleet of 74 aircraft does not deliver the same capability as a single fleet of 65 aircraft. This section examines known cost considerations in an effort to compare the single and mixed fleets. Despite having a sub-fleet of lower cost aircraft, the loss of economies of scale combined with the cost of duplication may result in a mixed fleet that is more expensive than its single fleet counterpart as was shown in a recent estimate of sustainment costs of future Australian fighter fleets (Ref. R).

Figure 1 presents a fitting analogy that helps one understand that reducing acquisition costs alone is completely insufficient to ensure mixed fleet costs are comparable to those of a single fleet. The studies at Refs. S and T provide evidence that is consistent with the existence of significant fixed operating, support, and infrastructure costs associated with any aircraft fleet. In the case of a mixed fleet, extra costs result from duplication: infrastructure; aircraft maintenance support equipment; operational and maintenance training; supply lines; project management; engineering support; aircraft certification; test and evaluation; storage and management of spare parts, weapons, and expendables; and electronic warfare and systems reprogramming are just some of the many sources of duplication amongst the two sub-fleets.

...

This report compared a single fleet of aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NATO and NORAD commitments, against a mixed fleet consisting of these higher capability, higher cost aircraft combined with lower capability, lower cost aircraft.

The analysis found that a mixed fleet of 38 higher capability aircraft, chosen for their ability to fulfill the most challenging of the NATO missions, and 34 lower capability aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NORAD obligations, could not provide the same capability as the single fleet of 65 higher capability aircraft.

stratable wrote:

The initial purchase price is likely lower for the Gripen than for the F35. Not sure about useful life, maintenance, long-term support, etc.
You may not always need a F35, especially for patrolling the Arctic?

So the problem with your suggestion is that today we know the F-35 is cheaper to acquire than a Gripen E. The F-35 may cost more to sustain than a Gripen but that is a much more debatable question than the acquisition cost. The F-35 will have a fleet size likely ten times that of the Gripen as well as require less intensive capability upgrades over the life of type to maintain capability as well as being an overall more capable aircraft, range, payload, sensors etc, to begin with.

If patrolling the Arctic for air threat is the requirement ironically the F-35 is actually a better option than any of the other jets. The MADL data link brings with it significant advantages, one of which is the F-35 formation in flight is now much more widely dispersed. Instead of being ten miles from your wingman, standard separation for western 4th gen aircraft, you are now sitting at seventy miles away, all while sharing and fusing all the information each jet is detecting across the whole flight via MADL. Now those four F-35s you sent up to patrol the Arctic have a spread of 210 nm between them, with the corresponding enhanced radar coverage, compared to 30 nm for the other aircraft.

Thanks for the detailed response. If the RCAF had access to all the data necessary, it should be a pretty straightforward process choosing their aircraft.
Let's see how all the different interests (political, commercial, etc.) come together.

stratable wrote:

Thanks for the detailed response. If the RCAF had access to all the data necessary, it should be a pretty straightforward process choosing their aircraft.
Let's see how all the different interests (political, commercial, etc.) come together.

That is the issue here. The RCAF has had access to all the necessary data for years. If the Conservatives had ordered the Gripen, the Liberals would have canceled the order and said it wasnt good enough for our Air force. The Conservatives ordered the F-35, so the Liberals canceled the contract saying it was too expensive and had too many flaws. They would have been properly briefed by the RCAF and Lockheed on the true status and projected costs of the F-35 project, but chose to use it as political fodder rather than ordering the best hardware for the job. Now that it has become clear the F-35 is the best option, they are dragging their feet.

Oroka wrote:

stratable wrote:

Thanks for the detailed response. If the RCAF had access to all the data necessary, it should be a pretty straightforward process choosing their aircraft.
Let's see how all the different interests (political, commercial, etc.) come together.

That is the issue here. The RCAF has had access to all the necessary data for years. If the Conservatives had ordered the Gripen, the Liberals would have canceled the order and said it wasnt good enough for our Air force. The Conservatives ordered the F-35, so the Liberals canceled the contract saying it was too expensive and had too many flaws. They would have been properly briefed by the RCAF and Lockheed on the true status and projected costs of the F-35 project, but chose to use it as political fodder rather than ordering the best hardware for the job. Now that it has become clear the F-35 is the best option, they are dragging their feet.

I don't know how much access the Opposition had to the negotiations/bidding process when the decision for the F-35 was originally made by the Conservative government but: I am trying not to be a cynic and assume in good faith that they had valid reasons to restart the competition other than political ones, maybe actually hoping that the Typhoon or Rafale could compete on value for money, maybe even just to be able to renegotiate some components of the F-35 deal. Especially given that the aircraft is gonna be in service for decades to come I'd rather see them take the most capable platform now, even though it may cost a bit more.

stratable wrote:

I don't know how much access the Opposition had to the negotiations/bidding process when the decision for the F-35 was originally made by the Conservative government but: I am trying not to be a cynic and assume in good faith that they had valid reasons to restart the competition other than political ones, maybe actually hoping that the Typhoon or Rafale could compete on value for money, maybe even just to be able to renegotiate some components of the F-35 deal. Especially given that the aircraft is gonna be in service for decades to come I'd rather see them take the most capable platform now, even though it may cost a bit more.

It was originally the Liberal Government that agreed to participation in the JSF program and, while the Conservative Government signed the MOU in late 2006, it was on the back of a lot of political work and agreements negotiated by the Liberals before the 2006 election.

Trudeau campaigned on not buying the F-35 purely as a point of difference and as evidence of the financial waste of the Harper Government. In the preceding years multiple reports had utterly confused the public on the long term sustainment costs of the aircraft. The key point is despite his claims that Canada would never order the F-35 his Government has continued to fund participation in the JSF industrial program providing billions in high tech work to Canadian aerospace companies. The issue is that if Canada selects a different aircraft Canadian companies will not be able to bid for future F-35 work and their current work will be wound up, similar to what has happened with Turkey, and will be redistributed to other partners.

As already stated, the irony of this whole situation is the delays from the Trudeau Government in running an open and fair competition have resulted in the F-35 becoming the best option on cost, sustainment and capability. It might not be politically but the new fighter selection is such an insignificant issue in Canadian politics it probably doesn't matter.

Ozair wrote:

Trudeau campaigned on not buying the F-35 purely as a point of difference and as evidence of the financial waste of the Harper Government. In the preceding years multiple reports had utterly confused the public on the long term sustainment costs of the aircraft.

Feel free to disagree (as I’d take it you’d have a more qualified perspective) but I’m inclined to blame the infamous Carlo Kopp who was intent on spreading Alex Jones-levels of self-based suppositions for the sake of playing Pretendo Defense Minister.

That said I still think Trudeau is vastly superior to Harper on domestic issues. Remember politics is more than just efficient ways to break things and kill people.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Trudeau campaigned on not buying the F-35 purely as a point of difference and as evidence of the financial waste of the Harper Government. In the preceding years multiple reports had utterly confused the public on the long term sustainment costs of the aircraft.

Feel free to disagree (as I’d take it you’d have a more qualified perspective) but I’m inclined to blame the infamous Carlo Kopp who was intent on spreading Alex Jones-levels of self-based suppositions for the sake of playing Pretendo Defense Minister.

Carlo Kopp and APA were an interesting case. It was strange how much penetration they had globally while being seen generally as crazy quacks inside Australia. From a Canadian confusion perspective, the issue was the timeframes that were used to generate the overall project costs. The Canadian DND looked at a 20 year costing while the KPMG costing was 42 years… As you can imagine, and what happened, with multiple numbers flying around, the F-35 program being the most watched/commented military program in history anywhere and a lack of credible journalists the world over it was easy to seed confusion.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

That said I still think Trudeau is vastly superior to Harper on domestic issues. Remember politics is more than just efficient ways to break things and kill people.

I long ago stopped following Canadian domestic politics other than the military aspects but I suspect it is similar to Australia and a lot of other places right now, that centre left and centre right parties are broadly very similar in office but look for distinction while in opposition.

We have some seemingly fairly well informed and astute participants here.. Has anyone had word of whether the current COVID-19 crisis will impact the timeline on the Canadian Future Fighter Capability Project? I can see two issues:

1. staff shortage/distraction - with social distancing, and an as yet unknown rate of penetration in Ottawa, are the staff available and focused enough to progress this?

2. funding - this is the larger problem in my opinion. In a country that does not take defense particularly seriously, and especially among a fairly unsupportive populous, I would think the unexpected cost of the massive stimulus announced (with more to come likely) will lead the Liberals to defer this project materially. Political parties are very attuned to where the public wants funds spent, and in this time of crisis (and possibly a subsequent recession), I can't see the public supporting a huge fighter acquisition project (and yes, I know they need to be replaced - probably ten years ago - but the public and our politicians do not, so it's an easy sacrifice for them).

One wonders if the shipbuilding program will be cut to free up funds, or whether one can be kicked down the road a few terms...?

Curious for the informed thoughts here.

j-bird wrote:

We have some seemingly fairly well informed and astute participants here.. Has anyone had word of whether the current COVID-19 crisis will impact the timeline on the Canadian Future Fighter Capability Project? I can see two issues:

1. staff shortage/distraction - with social distancing, and an as yet unknown rate of penetration in Ottawa, are the staff available and focused enough to progress this?

2. funding - this is the larger problem in my opinion. In a country that does not take defense particularly seriously, and especially among a fairly unsupportive populous, I would think the unexpected cost of the massive stimulus announced (with more to come likely) will lead the Liberals to defer this project materially. Political parties are very attuned to where the public wants funds spent, and in this time of crisis (and possibly a subsequent recession), I can't see the public supporting a huge fighter acquisition project (and yes, I know they need to be replaced - probably ten years ago - but the public and our politicians do not, so it's an easy sacrifice for them).

One wonders if the shipbuilding program will be cut to free up funds, or whether one can be kicked down the road a few terms...?

Curious for the informed thoughts here.

I think it is just too early to say what the ramifications will be. As with the commercial airlines we don't have a good grasp on how long the COVID-19 crisis will last and without that, and the potential additional money that may be spent, it is very hard to figure out how COVID-19 will impact defence spending.

There will come a time though when Canada will have to retire the classic Hornet and not retiring the aircraft but upgrading will end up, given its age, being very close to the same cost as acquiring new.

Given that the CF-18's are running out of airframe life, there would be a need for a replacement jet to enter service in order to maintain domestic air defence capabilities, otherwise, we would be totally reliant on the Americans, which most Canadians, along with politicians aren't too fond of that idea.

Ozair wrote:

There will come a time though when Canada will have to retire the classic Hornet and not retiring the aircraft but upgrading will end up, given its age, being very close to the same cost as acquiring new.

The delay in purchasing a replacements for the CF-18 was never about money, it was about ordering anything other than the F-35 chosen by the Conservatives. Now that everything except the Super Hornet costs more than the F-35 and is less capable, the Liberals know this but will spend whatever it costs to put off ordering F-35.

Ozair wrote:

Trudeau campaigned on not buying the F-35 purely as a point of difference and as evidence of the financial waste of the Harper Government. matter.

That could indeed be a reason. Additionally, Boeings / DoC efforts to destroy Canada's aerospace industry a few years ago is probably not seen as a sign of partnership and facilitating long term cooperation.

https://www.ft.com/content/38cc9930-4c0 ... f534d630e8

keesje wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Trudeau campaigned on not buying the F-35 purely as a point of difference and as evidence of the financial waste of the Harper Government. matter.

That could indeed be a reason. Additionally, Boeings / DoC efforts to destroy Canada's aerospace industry a few years ago is probably not seen as a sign of partnership and facilitating long term cooperation.

https://www.ft.com/content/38cc9930-4c0 ... f534d630e8

A reason for what Keesje?

There are only three aircraft left in the competition and only two of them are certified out of the box for the US/CAN eyes only data, both of which are manufacturers the Liberal party has had issues with. Unfortunately for Saab supporters it doesn’t improve the chances of their airframe as it doesn't meet the capability/specification required.

Oroka wrote:

Ozair wrote:

There will come a time though when Canada will have to retire the classic Hornet and not retiring the aircraft but upgrading will end up, given its age, being very close to the same cost as acquiring new.

The delay in purchasing a replacements for the CF-18 was never about money, it was about ordering anything other than the F-35 chosen by the Conservatives. Now that everything except the Super Hornet costs more than the F-35 and is less capable, the Liberals know this but will spend whatever it costs to put off ordering F-35.

I doubt that will hold the Canadians back from ordering the F-35. Trudeau can just claim by waiting they saved the Canadians money. Average Joe will buy that claim but the reality is with the cost of upgrading the current Hornets, buying additional airframes from Australia and the significant staff departures from the RCAF they would have been better financially and from a capability perspective to have just acquired the aircraft as planned.

The Liberals did increase the buy from 65 to 88 for no reason. I expect that that would be an initial concession, reduce the fleet back to 65 and save some acquisition money. They can always buy more if the long term financial situation improves.

I do not think short term/ long term options are off the table that might not be visible now.

An interim solution until a two engined sixt gen fighter becomes available. And of course a share in such a program.

keesje wrote:

I do not think short term/ long term options are off the table that might not be visible now.

An interim solution until a two engined sixt gen fighter becomes available. And of course a share in such a program.

Yes Canada could scrap the whole competition and start again, certainly possible although unlikely given the candidates wouldn’t change, nor would the requirements and likely nor would the budget. The previous attempt at an interim solution was clearly found out as not being cost competitive. If Canada buys a new aircraft it buys it to keep and buys one fleet, not a hodge podge mix of existing Hornets and a new interim aircraft to cover a capability short fall.

The absurdity of your suggestion is if you look at an interim solution, unless Canada wants to buy up Hornets being sold by other nations and manage a massive fleet of multiple blocks and variants, then the F-35 remains the cheapest option and most compliant with the existing and persisting USA/CAN data issues. Waiting around until the 2040s for a supposed 6th gen aircraft (which still may not meet USA/CAN only information requirements) that will itself almost certainly be delayed by COVID-19 budget impacts is fraught with risk…

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I do not think short term/ long term options are off the table that might not be visible now.

An interim solution until a two engined sixt gen fighter becomes available. And of course a share in such a program.

Yes Canada could scrap the whole competition and start again, certainly possible although unlikely given the candidates wouldn’t change, nor would the requirements and likely nor would the budget. The previous attempt at an interim solution was clearly found out as not being cost competitive. If Canada buys a new aircraft it buys it to keep and buys one fleet, not a hodge podge mix of existing Hornets and a new interim aircraft to cover a capability short fall.

The absurdity of your suggestion is if you look at an interim solution, unless Canada wants to buy up Hornets being sold by other nations and manage a massive fleet of multiple blocks and variants, then the F-35 remains the cheapest option and most compliant with the existing and persisting USA/CAN data issues. Waiting around until the 2040s for a supposed 6th gen aircraft (which still may not meet USA/CAN only information requirements) that will itself almost certainly be delayed by COVID-19 budget impacts is fraught with risk…

Hi Ozair, I have seen over the year you are a kind of unconditional F35 promotor.

For me it is pretty clear what Trudeau says. And the situation didn't get easier since than. After what US DoC did (& got slammed for) to Canada in line with POTUS strategy is unforgotten. Ignoring makes no sense.

keesje wrote:

Hi Ozair, I have seen over the year you are a kind of unconditional F35 promotor.

LOL, sure Keesje. Which fighter aircraft currently available on the international market and in the Canadian competition, current and withdrawn, is cheapest to acquire? Which is the most capable of the three aircraft, or the original five aircraft in the competition? Which will be manufactured in the most quantity? Which has the most money devoted to its future development? Which has the most investment in Canadian Industry? Which is operated by Canada's closest neighbour, closest ally and largest trading partner?

Yes the F-35 had its issues and I have been vocal both in my support for the program and how frustrating these issues have been but that doesn’t change the fact the F-35 is the most capable and cost effective fighter aircraft available to Canada today and likely for the next 30 years.

keesje wrote:

For me it is pretty clear what Trudeau says. And the situation didn't get easier since than. After what US DoC did (& got slammed for) to Canada in line with POTUS strategy is unforgotten. Ignoring makes no sense.

What am I ignoring Keesje? Has Canada and the Liberal Government excluded the F-35 from the competition even though Trudeau said they would? Has Trudeau withdrawn Canada from the JSF Industrial partnership? Has Canada reduced the capability required in the competition, reduced the USA/CAN requirement for sharing intelligence data?

No one gives a dam what POTUS thinks. Even if he is re-elected he won't be President, and Trudeau likely won't be Prime Minister, when the first aircraft arrives no matter what is chosen.

Keesje, you have made these statements repeatedly over the last few years and continued to be proven wrong. No matter how many photos you post of Trudeau shaking hands and smiling with European leaders it doesn't change the facts of what remains in the Canadian competition and what doesn't. Nor does it change the requirements of the competition. Despite Trudeau's bluster his Government has continued to fund the JSF Industrial program bringing billions of dollars of work into the Canadian economy, more than any of the other competitors, current or withdrawn, can promise or provide.

Canada can chose what they will, I haven't lived in Canada for the last 21 years and it really doesn’t make a difference to me, but if you objectively look at what is available and what is at stake for the Canadian military, industry and long term political alliances, then there really are just two choices and one of them is far more likely than the other.

I don't see how anything less than the Super Hornet with all the upgrades (conformal tanks, stealth weps pod, and most importantly EPE engines) would be worth acquiring, especially as "interim" almost always ends up being permanent.

Surprise surprise Canada has again paid their JSF Industrial program dues.

Canada invests another US$70M in F-35 development despite no commitment to buy

The federal government has made another multimillion-dollar investment into the development of the F-35 stealth fighter jet, even as it weighs a new extension to the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s.

Canada made the annual F-35 payment to the U.S. military last week, spending US$70.1 million to remain one of nine partner countries in the fighter-jet project. Each partner is required to cover a portion of the plane's multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.

Staying in the program has advantages, as partners get a discount when purchasing the jets and compete for billions of dollars in contracts associated with building and maintaining them. The F-35 is being built by U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

While the new payment brings Canada's total investment in the F-35 to US$541.3 million since 1997, the government says Canadian companies have also secured US$1.8 billion in work related to the stealth fighter.

"This participation provides Canadian industry with contract opportunities that are only available to program participants," Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an email.

"Our membership will also allow us preferential pricing and sequencing in the build schedule should the F-35 aircraft be successful in the current future fighter capability program."

...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada- ... -1.4926908


One of the remaining three vendors has also requested an extension for final submission which the article is reporting as Boeing.

"We can confirm that we are currently evaluating a request from industry to extend the deadline for preliminary proposals," Public Services and Procurement Canada spokeswoman Michele LaRose said in an emailed statement.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada- ... -1.4926908

National Post has reported the vendors have been granted another month.

This latest extension — the second this year for the competition — will give the three companies vying for the lucrative contact until the end of July, rather than June 30, to submit their proposals. The winner will be tasked with delivering 88 new jets to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-in ... ent-to-buy