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

Ozair · Mon May 13, 2019 9:55 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
A bit of a monkey wrench in the works; American officials will need to sign off and certify the fighter jet Canada buys to ensure the fighter jet meets American intelligence sharing requirements: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... ion-dnd-2/

Interesting aspect indeed.

While I'm strongly convinced with the US military professionalism in this eventual assessment, I'm not so sure with the political side... So let's say for some reasons non-US aircrafts get disqualified; it could just delay big time the acquisition process (assuming a non-US aircraft was the front runner).

In the mean time, the Canadian "Air" contribution to NORAD/NATO would just get weaker and weaker...

I’m not sure this really means much in the grand scheme of things. The difference between Five eyes info and Two eyes info is pretty vanilla and likely all of the manufacturers would be able to handle it, the issue is who pays for the customization and configuration required. From the requirements specified by Canada in the tender it is incumbent on the bidders to be compliant with the information sharing standards. If the Eurofighter or Gripen is selected and they are not certified then they will have go through the process of securing their systems or processes to allow that to happen, likely at manufacturer cost. Alternatively the contract will likely allow both parties to walk away if the aircraft cannot meet the requirement and receive American approval. This is one of the reasons that Dassault withdrew, because they couldn’t meet the information sharing standards likely at a cost they were willing to bear. Yes it may extend the competition but if the manufacturer makes a claim they are compliant and then is demonstrated not to be it is better to know earlier than later…

This slides both ways through, the US cannot use an aircraft not certified for Two eyes info in NORAD duties so at some point those US aircraft went through the same compliance process.

What we may see though is what I stated earlier in the thread, that Saab will withdraw the Gripen as Dassault already did with the Rafale, as they likely won’t be able to cost effectively meet the requirement.

Ozair · Fri May 31, 2019 2:26 pm

No surprise that SAAB is offering local assembly of the Gripen for Canada. 88 aircraft is a big enough order that it would be worth it and if Canada ordered they would have a bigger E fleet than Sweden.

Personally I don't think the Gripen has much of a chance especially if they want to manufacture locally as it will increase the cost.

Saab ready to offer Canadian-built Gripen fighters to Ottawa

Saab is ready to sell the Canadian government 88 Canada-built Gripen fighters should Ottawa require home-built aircraft.

The Swedish combat aircraft manufacturer cautions nothing is finalised and its offer will ultimately reflect Canada’s formal request for proposal (RFP). The company expects the final RFP to be issued around midyear by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).

...

Https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -t-458574/

Ozair · Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:54 pm

A storm in a teacup I think, it is an airshow after all.

Military allows F-35 to be promoted at fighter jet base in midst of $19B competition

The Canadian military has taken the unprecedented step of allowing the F-35 fighter jet to be promoted at a Quebec base this weekend in the midst of the government’s $19 billion process to purchase new aircraft.

Having only one of the four competing fighter jets on display has further fueled concerns among some industry representatives that the competition is rigged in favour of the F-35.

Lockheed Martin Canada, the subsidiary of the jet’s U.S. manufacturer, has been touting the unique opportunity to market the aircraft’s appearance at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville and the air show there.

Bagotville is one of Canada’s main fighter jet bases.

Alan Williams, the former procurement chief for the Department of National Defence, said the decision is clearly wrong. “It is obviously inappropriate and I’m surprised it would even be sanctioned,” said Williams. “You have to have the appearance of fairness and this doesn’t help at all.”

But the Department of National Defence noted in a statement that Lockheed Martin did not request the F-35 aircraft be displayed at the airshow, nor was it invited to do so. Instead it was the U.S. Air Force that decided to send the F-35 demonstration team to Bagotville, the department noted in an email.

The DND stated that the U.S. Navy Super Hornet team was also invited to Bagotville but they did not select that as one of their exhibit sites.

“All other aircraft that are part of the competition do not have military air demonstration teams in North America,” it added.

...

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/mi ... ot-invited

Ozair · Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:31 am

I’m not overly surprised at this. I’m not even sure you can blame the Canadians. If Canada are planning to acquire a fighter aircraft to last for the next 40 years, until nearly 2070, then they obviously are going to set the requirements pretty high. Given Airbus is already starting work on a fighter aircraft to supersede the Eurofighter which is expected to enter service only 9 years after the last Eurofighter would be delivered to Canada it makes sense they will struggle with some requirements. Same for Boeing who doesn’t have anything beyond SH and F-15 work.

Be interesting to see whether some of the requirements are altered to keep all four in the race. We also know that Boeing and Airbus struggled against the F-35 in the Denmark competition and the F-35 has improved in cost and capability since then.

Exclusive: Airbus, Boeing indicate they may pull out of Canada fighter jet race - sources

Airbus SE <AIR.PA> and Boeing Co <BA.N> may pull out of a bidding process to supply Canada with new fighter jets because they say the contest is unfairly tilted towards Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N>, two sources with direct knowledge of the situation said on Monday.

The three companies competing with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet have already complained about the way the contest is being run, and expressed concern some of the specifications clearly favour the U.S. firm, industry sources have said in recent weeks.

Next week the government is due to release the so-called request for proposals – the final list of requirements – for the 88 new planes it wants to buy. The contract is worth between C$15 billion (£9 billion) and C$19 billion and the planes are due to be delivered between 2025 and the early 2030s.

Boeing and Airbus have now formally written to Ottawa expressing concerns about the current requirements, said two sources familiar with the matter who declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the situation. The fourth bidder is Sweden’s Saab AB <SAABb.ST>.

Pat Finn, the defence ministry’s top official in charge of procurement, confirmed one of the four companies had sent a formal letter but gave no details. The final request for proposals is due out on July 17 and modifications are still being considered, he said.

“We continue to engage all four of them,” he said in a telephone interview. “We have had some comments (such as) ‘If changes are not made in such a place then we would frankly consider possibly not bidding.’”

“We are looking at those very seriously. I can’t say that we will make every change, but as far as we know we continue to have four bidders in the race.”

Airbus declined to comment. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment.

...

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/09/exc ... ce-sources

If it comes down to Gripen vs F-35 I expect the Swedes will also pull out and then Canada, and more especially Trudeau based on his previous election claims, will be left with an interesting choice to make…

ThePointblank · Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:29 am

Ozair wrote:
I’m not overly surprised at this. I’m not even sure you can blame the Canadians. If Canada are planning to acquire a fighter aircraft to last for the next 40 years, until nearly 2070, then they obviously are going to set the requirements pretty high. Given Airbus is already starting work on a fighter aircraft to supersede the Eurofighter which is expected to enter service only 9 years after the last Eurofighter would be delivered to Canada it makes sense they will struggle with some requirements. Same for Boeing who doesn’t have anything beyond SH and F-15 work.

Be interesting to see whether some of the requirements are altered to keep all four in the race. We also know that Boeing and Airbus struggled against the F-35 in the Denmark competition and the F-35 has improved in cost and capability since then.

Exclusive: Airbus, Boeing indicate they may pull out of Canada fighter jet race - sources

Airbus SE <AIR.PA> and Boeing Co <BA.N> may pull out of a bidding process to supply Canada with new fighter jets because they say the contest is unfairly tilted towards Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N>, two sources with direct knowledge of the situation said on Monday.

The three companies competing with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet have already complained about the way the contest is being run, and expressed concern some of the specifications clearly favour the U.S. firm, industry sources have said in recent weeks.

Next week the government is due to release the so-called request for proposals – the final list of requirements – for the 88 new planes it wants to buy. The contract is worth between C$15 billion (£9 billion) and C$19 billion and the planes are due to be delivered between 2025 and the early 2030s.

Boeing and Airbus have now formally written to Ottawa expressing concerns about the current requirements, said two sources familiar with the matter who declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the situation. The fourth bidder is Sweden’s Saab AB <SAABb.ST>.

Pat Finn, the defence ministry’s top official in charge of procurement, confirmed one of the four companies had sent a formal letter but gave no details. The final request for proposals is due out on July 17 and modifications are still being considered, he said.

“We continue to engage all four of them,” he said in a telephone interview. “We have had some comments (such as) ‘If changes are not made in such a place then we would frankly consider possibly not bidding.’”

“We are looking at those very seriously. I can’t say that we will make every change, but as far as we know we continue to have four bidders in the race.”

Airbus declined to comment. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment.

...

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/09/exc ... ce-sources

If it comes down to Gripen vs F-35 I expect the Swedes will also pull out and then Canada, and more especially Trudeau based on his previous election claims, will be left with an interesting choice to make…

What a bloody joke this 'competition' has devolved into...

zululima · Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:38 am

ThePointblank wrote:
What a bloody joke this 'competition' has devolved into...

I think India and Canada should team up for a joint-RFP so that multiple hundreds of planes could be endlessly bid, cancelled, and re-bid all in one easy-to-follow farce. The endlessly-potential cost savings could possibly be enormous, perhaps, eventually, around 2035, some politicians believe.

art · Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:01 am

zululima wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
What a bloody joke this 'competition' has devolved into...

I think India and Canada should team up for a joint-RFP so that multiple hundreds of planes could be endlessly bid, cancelled, and re-bid all in one easy-to-follow farce. The endlessly-potential cost savings could possibly be enormous, perhaps, eventually, around 2035, some politicians believe.

Definitely would save a lot of money. Zero expenditure on procurement for 15 years. Then in 2034 they would decide that they should go for a 6G aircraft and start a new competition including the Franco-German-Spanish NGF, British-Swedish-Italian Tempest and American-American-American F-38 with a view to deliveries starting in the 2050-2060 timeframe.

Ozair · Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:12 pm

Boeing not yet ready to leave the Canadian competition.

Boeing reassures it’s still in the Canadian fighter competition

After a news report that said it might pull out of Canada’s fighter competition, Boeing says it’s still participating in the process and hasn’t made any final decisions.

Boeing and Airbus, which are respectively offering Ottawa the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, have complained in letters to Canada’s Department of National Defence that its procurement competition is unfairly favouring Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter, according to a report by Reuters. Boeing declines to comment specifically on the reported complaints.

“We appreciate the transparent nature of this competition, specifically the multiple opportunities to provide formal comments to the government of Canada on draft request for proposals (RFP),” says Boeing. “We continue to be very confident in the Super Hornet Block III capabilities to meet the defence needs of Canada and Boeing’s ability to bring unmatched benefits to the Canadian economy through the aerospace sector.”

...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-459552/

Boeing also made some factually incorrect claims on the capability of the aircraft compared to the F-35 in the same article,

One other reported area of disagreement are Royal Canadian Air Force requirements that emphasise the ability to carry out first strikes on foreign targets, a role which favours the radar evading abilities of the F-35 stealth fighter. In place of stealth abilities, Boeing has pitched the F/A-18E/F’s longer, unrefuelled flight endurance and larger weapons carrying capacity as capabilities that enable the fighter to make missile strikes from stand-off distances, outside the range of enemy radar and air defences.

Not sure how Boeing make that longer range and larger payload claim. It is very clear the F-35 flies further with more payload across the whole envelope as it has a higher internal fuel load (the SH only matches this with the upcoming CFTs) and can fly with both a max fuel load and max weapons payload to its MTOW. The SH to match range will always have to trade weapons space for external fuel, a configuration that isn’t great aerodynamically for the aircraft.

Ozair · Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:48 am

A lot more to this article than the Executive summary posted below. Some very well-reasoned analysis that takes into account the key aspects of the fighter acquisition and how long it has to last for Canada. Article is a couple of months old.

Anatomy of a Buy: The Four Dimensions of Procuring a Future Fighter for Canada

Purchasing a fleet of fighter aircraft is a complex process with many variables and the Canadian government has a duty to ensure the billions of procurement dollars required are properly spent. The interplay between the four dimensions involved in military procurement (military, technological, economic, and political) defies simple analysis. The government has directed the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure Canadian sovereignty, defend North America, and engage in extraterritorial missions. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) has responded to its responsibilities to support these commitments with a thorough, capability-based Statement of Requirements for the future fighter, taking critical functionalities of operating in the future battlespace and emerging technologies into consideration.

The fighters expected to be offered by the four qualified suppliers represent two significant cleavages. The first cleavage is technological/sustainability, namely between fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft and revolves around long-term sustainment costs and future technological adaptability. The second cleavage is commercial/security, specifically European (Eurofighter/Gripen) versus American (F-35/Super Hornet) and enmeshes national security compliance with the government’s desire for tailorable economic packages. The specificity of these cleavages is important to understand as they have repercussions in each of the four decision-making dimensions.

The government’s choice to ensure a competitive process with more than three bidders has resulted in modifications to the assessment of mandatory criteria in critical operational functions, lowering the threshold of performance measurements identified by the RCAF. Suitability and adaptability to two- and five-eyes requirements will be a crucial operational determinant. However, application of the current Industrial and Technological Benefits policy and the measure of points awarded for the economic offset portion in the Request For Proposal appears to undermine the primacy of meeting military needs. Thus, leading to the spectre of the Liberal government’s promise that “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” becoming a reality through other policy means.

Canada is a North American state with responsibility to protect not only ourselves but our most important strategic partner and neighbour. To maximize effectiveness, any future fighter will need to be fully integral to the North American battlespace as opposed to simply being integrated and interoperable as is the accepted practice in NATO. The deputy minister of National Defence has stated that capability is the core component in the procurement process. Allowing economic benefits to prevail over capability during evaluation inevitably changes the empirical equation of the stated government policy that initiated the purchase in the first place. A fair and balanced competition for the future fighter, uninhibited by overt political interference, needs to occur to ensure the right fighter aircraft is chosen....

https://www.cgai.ca/anatomy_of_a_buy_th ... for_canada

A graph from the article showing the typical cost curves and percentage of overall acquisition the respective phases of the life cycle take.

mxaxai · Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:34 am

Ozair wrote:
A graph from the article showing the typical cost curves and percentage of overall acquisition the respective phases of the life cycle take.

Very liberal scaling on this graph. The "10 %" development cost definititely fits more than twice in the "15 %" procurement cost and at least eight times in the "70 %" sustainment cost. Particularly the procurement cost is vastly overrepresented.

Ozair · Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:37 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
A graph from the article showing the typical cost curves and percentage of overall acquisition the respective phases of the life cycle take.

Very liberal scaling on this graph. The "10 %" development cost definititely fits more than twice in the "15 %" procurement cost and at least eight times in the "70 %" sustainment cost. Particularly the procurement cost is vastly overrepresented.

LOL, I didn’t even look at the proportions of the graph, just the numbers adding up as expected.

keesje · Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:11 am

Maybe a good team for the Frtench to send some Rafales to Canada. For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization. Send a A330-MRTT with it for the trip.

Ozair · Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:28 am

keesje wrote:
Maybe a good team for the Frtench to send some Rafales to Canada. For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization. Send a A330-MRTT with it for the trip.

Why, Dassault has already withdrawn and as per the Canadian procurement website can no longer submit a bid.

keesje · Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:44 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Maybe a good team for the French to send some Rafales to Canada. For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization. Send a A330-MRTT with it for the trip.

Why, Dassault has already withdrawn and as per the Canadian procurement website can no longer submit a bid.

For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization. Situations & requirements do also change over time. As we have seen on this program over the last 5 years. Now Airbus & Boeing want to withdraw? https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/

Ozair · Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:19 am

keesje wrote:

For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization.

You think that Canadian aircraft need to do that? Both air forces worked together over Iraq/Syria for almost a year before the Canadians pulled out in 2016. They also flew together at exercise Pitch Black in Australia in 2018. The French and Canadians also flew together during NATO Exercise Trident Juncture last year. I think they have plenty of NATO familiarization and joint training with each other.

keesje wrote:
Situations & requirements do also change over time. As we have seen on this program over the last 5 years.

Keesje, because you seem to forget this frequently, Dassault withdrew.

A France-Dassault team was part of the Supplier List when announced in February. On November 8, 2018, the team informed Canada of its decision to officially withdraw from the competition. France-Dassault is therefore no longer an eligible Supplier in the competitive process, and will not be invited to submit a proposal to Canada.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

The whole point of the current phase of the competition is to massage requirements based on the feedback from the respective manufacturers, the result of which is that some requirements have changed.

On October 26, 2018, Canada released a first draft of the RFP to eligible Suppliers for their review and feedback. Suppliers had until December 21, 2018, to provide their feedback to Canada. Canada also invited eligible Suppliers for a firsthand look at existing fighter operations and infrastructure at its main operating bases (MOBs) in late 2018.

...

On June 20, 2019, Canada released a second draft of the RFP to eligible suppliers for their final review and feedback. This feedback will be used to finalize the formal RFP for release this summer.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

Do you get it now? There is no opportunity for Dassault to get back in. Both major political parties are supporting this competition so the upcoming election won't change anything, nor would Dassault suddenly in the future meet the information sharing requirements that forced them to withdraw anyway.

keesje wrote:
Now Airbus & Boeing want to withdraw?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/

Well done. You posted the same news article I did eight days ago. Did you miss the follow up article saying Boeing is not leaving posted five days ago?

keesje · Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:23 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

For joint training, exercises, inflight refuelling exercises for UN operations. NATO familirization.

You think that Canadian aircraft need to do that? Both air forces worked together over Iraq/Syria for almost a year before the Canadians pulled out in 2016. They also flew together at exercise Pitch Black in Australia in 2018. The French and Canadians also flew together during NATO Exercise Trident Juncture last year. I think they have plenty of NATO familiarization and joint training with each other.

keesje wrote:
Situations & requirements do also change over time. As we have seen on this program over the last 5 years.

Keesje, because you seem to forget this frequently, Dassault withdrew.

A France-Dassault team was part of the Supplier List when announced in February. On November 8, 2018, the team informed Canada of its decision to officially withdraw from the competition. France-Dassault is therefore no longer an eligible Supplier in the competitive process, and will not be invited to submit a proposal to Canada.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

The whole point of the current phase of the competition is to massage requirements based on the feedback from the respective manufacturers, the result of which is that some requirements have changed.

On October 26, 2018, Canada released a first draft of the RFP to eligible Suppliers for their review and feedback. Suppliers had until December 21, 2018, to provide their feedback to Canada. Canada also invited eligible Suppliers for a firsthand look at existing fighter operations and infrastructure at its main operating bases (MOBs) in late 2018.

...

On June 20, 2019, Canada released a second draft of the RFP to eligible suppliers for their final review and feedback. This feedback will be used to finalize the formal RFP for release this summer.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

Do you get it now? There is no opportunity for Dassault to get back in. Both major political parties are supporting this competition so the upcoming election won't change anything, nor would Dassault suddenly in the future meet the information sharing requirements that forced them to withdraw anyway.

keesje wrote:
Now Airbus & Boeing want to withdraw?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/

Well done. You posted the same news article I did eight days ago. Did you miss the follow up article saying Boeing is not leaving posted five days ago?

Ozair, you seem to miss the point that processes like this are highly politcal. The requirements, contenders change over time. And if the process is coming to conclusion, the plug can be pulled anyway because of changed relations, requirements, political priorities, international situations, who knows. Maybe they'll conclude 2 aircraft are the best solution. It's all tax payer money, they have something to say too.

The F35, F18, Typhoon might all be pulled, now and then.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/08/us-canada-talks-underway-to-decide-if-the-f-35-will-be-pulled-from-canadas-fighter-competition/

Political relations between US and Canadian are vibrant.
https://news.yahoo.com/trudeau-slammed-trumps-racist-remarks-112134702.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA8DPicQK2AWXWe8ICl7gPl3R0FV30YWVFZuLkazlsKiotkxlzuLN3XhdjvLNo_ZoB--FFK1PqJ44pbBOOz2R8VdkioF-CVOQ0j7KprfRjqX-ZC_BzK2hinH4qEPeAcTw573s6GgXLJCm4OfIYMgKzsaH3NqOy7_fQryx9tb94F5

Things can change, these are long term decisions. Some of those leaders are actually happy to meet, even if they disagree.
https://imgcdn.pakistanpoint.com/media/2018/11/_3/730x425/pic_1541445444.jpg
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/06/2019-06-20T170445Z_1103368435_RC1644B12660_RTRMADP_3_USA-CANADA1-1024x683.jpg

Ozair · Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:05 pm

keesje wrote:

Ozair, you seem to miss the point that processes like this are highly politcal. The requirements, contenders change over time. And if the process is coming to conclusion, the plug can be pulled anyway because of changed relations, requirements, political priorities, international situations, who knows. Maybe they'll conclude 2 aircraft are the best solution. It's all tax payer money, they have something to say too.

Sorry Keesje, the data does not support your conclusion. Canada just signed up for the largest defence project in its history, the T26 program, with LM as the prime. If anti-american sentiment were such as issue why would they have gone with LM as the prime for a British designed vessel? The Canadian procurement policy is very clear and the RFP is also clear on the selection criteria and the respectvie weighting. Political preference is not an input into the process.

keesje wrote:
The F35, F18, Typhoon might all be pulled, now and then.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/08/us-canada-talks-underway-to-decide-if-the-f-35-will-be-pulled-from-canadas-fighter-competition/

And you again missed the update where the Canadians changed the requirements, exactly as I indicated they were able to do via the quotes I posted above, the ensure that the F-35 can still participate. The below article was published just two days after the one you linked.

Canada changes fighter jet rules to allow F-35 bid

The Canadian government will allow a “flexible approach” in determining industrial benefits for the new fighter jet program, making way for Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government to bid on the project.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... w-f-35-bid

keesje wrote:
Political relations between US and Canadian are vibrant.
https://news.yahoo.com/trudeau-slammed-trumps-racist-remarks-112134702.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA8DPicQK2AWXWe8ICl7gPl3R0FV30YWVFZuLkazlsKiotkxlzuLN3XhdjvLNo_ZoB--FFK1PqJ44pbBOOz2R8VdkioF-CVOQ0j7KprfRjqX-ZC_BzK2hinH4qEPeAcTw573s6GgXLJCm4OfIYMgKzsaH3NqOy7_fQryx9tb94F5

Keesje, this has literally no bearing on the competition. Trump isn’t selling the aircraft, the US Government is and Canada is buying an aircraft that has to last the Canadian Military for the next 40 years. Even if Trump were re-elected he still wouldn’t be in office by the time the first aircraft is delivered. Canada remains a strong ally of the US and the two have a special "two eyes" relationship (the data Dassault acknowledged it wouldn't be able to handle) based around NORAD. Neither Trump or Trudeau will impact that relationship.

keesje wrote:
Things can change, these are long term decisions. Some of those leaders are actually happy to meet, even if they disagree.
https://imgcdn.pakistanpoint.com/media/2018/11/_3/730x425/pic_1541445444.jpg
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/06/2019-06-20T170445Z_1103368435_RC1644B12660_RTRMADP_3_USA-CANADA1-1024x683.jpg

LOL, absolutely irrelevant Keesje.

TruNorth · Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:34 pm

Canada Sent out Requests for Fighters today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa ... -1.5221610

TruNorth

TruNorth · Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:53 pm

Requests for Proposals (not fighters)

TruNorth

Ozair · Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:18 am

TruNorth wrote:
Canada Sent out Requests for Fighters today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa ... -1.5221610

TruNorth

Just beat me to it.

Canada’s final solicitation for its next-gen fighter is out. Who will bid for the contract?

Canada on Tuesday issued a final solicitation for its much-hyped fighter competition, which will replace its fleet of aging CF-18s with 88 new jets.

Four vendors are expected to respond to the final request for proposals: Lockheed Martin, which is offering the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; Boeing, which is putting forward the F/A-18 Super Hornet; Swedish plane manufacturer Saab with its Gripen E; and Airbus, which will propose the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Those companies will have two chances to submit bids, according to a news release by the Canadian government. A first “security” offer is due in fall 2019. Vendors will then be permitted to revise and resubmit their proposals in spring 2020.

Canada intends to award a contract in early 2022, with the first of the new fighters coming online as early as 2025. The program has an expected value of CA$19 billion (U.S. $15 billion).

...

Each company’s bid will be evaluated on the basis of technical merit — which comprises 60 percent of the entrant’s score — as well as cost and economic benefits, each weighted at 20 percent.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07 ... -contract/

So capability is 60% of the weighting of the competition while cost and economic benefits are 20% each. I'd expect the F-35 is likely to win the capability and cost but may be less than rivals on direct economic benefits.

ThePointblank · Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:06 am

I wonder how much paperwork is going to be needed to be sent by the bidders on their aircraft?

I remember that for the FWSAR program, the individual bid packages had so much paperwork with them, that one company hired a truck to move it all, and another rented a U-Haul truck to deliver it to the DND. In all, between the 3 bidders, over 100,000 pages of paperwork was submitted for what is a simple aircraft.

Something tells me that the amount of paperwork each bidder will submit will easily fill a 20ft shipping container for each of their bids...

TObound · Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:52 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
I wonder how much paperwork is going to be needed to be sent by the bidders on their aircraft?

I remember that for the FWSAR program, the individual bid packages had so much paperwork with them, that one company hired a truck to move it all, and another rented a U-Haul truck to deliver it to the DND. In all, between the 3 bidders, over 100,000 pages of paperwork was submitted for what is a simple aircraft.

Something tells me that the amount of paperwork each bidder will submit will easily fill a 20ft shipping container for each of their bids...

You're referring to this:

https://vanguardcanada.com/2016/02/05/m ... wsar-bids/

Not sure if this have changed since I was last in a project management office, but at the time we were moving to software for tracking. Mostly this is a PWGSC/PSPC obsession with hard documents.

ThePointblank · Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:39 pm

Airbus is out:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus ... -1.5265665

One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.

The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials.

"Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."

They are claiming that trying to meet some of the NORAD requirements was too expensive.

Revelation · Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:05 am

ThePointblank wrote:
They are claiming that trying to meet some of the NORAD requirements was too expensive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKCN1VK1ZX is a little more frank, but with respect to NORAD it says:

“NORAD security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States (and) Canada,” Airbus said in a statement.

Sounds like sour grapes from a player upset that they could not sell last generation hardware at top dollar.

smithbs · Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:49 am

My reading of the article was that Airbus was upset that they had to put up 100% economic offset (and agreed to do so) whereas the Canadian government relaxed that requirement for LM, because the F-35 universe doesn't work that way. Apparently Boeing was also not happy with the economic offset situation.

As for the NORAD compatibility, I didn't think it was insurmountable - just time and money, and Canada would be paying for it in the end. You can do a lot of things if you have enough time and money.

YIMBY · Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:40 am

Very bad policy form Canadian government. They end up paying extra for F-35. Even if they have predecided to buy that they should have pretended to keep all bidders in equal level up to the end to preserve their negotiation power (like e.g. Finland does even though it is very likely that some will not meet the demands or misses the deadline).

What is that NORAD all about? It is a political framework, but is it mostly aimed to keep Canada with US hardware? Does Canada have anything to say on it?

Is SAAB now only a nominal candidate?

Fortunately Canada is one of the few countries that can afford using aging planes and could even buy without risk a third best alternative, if political winds turn into that direction.

ThePointblank · Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:24 am

YIMBY wrote:
Very bad policy form Canadian government. They end up paying extra for F-35. Even if they have predecided to buy that they should have pretended to keep all bidders in equal level up to the end to preserve their negotiation power (like e.g. Finland does even though it is very likely that some will not meet the demands or misses the deadline).

What is that NORAD all about? It is a political framework, but is it mostly aimed to keep Canada with US hardware? Does Canada have anything to say on it?

Is SAAB now only a nominal candidate?

Fortunately Canada is one of the few countries that can afford using aging planes and could even buy without risk a third best alternative, if political winds turn into that direction.

1. If/When Canada picks the F-35, we will pay the price that the US is paying for the F-35.

2. NORAD is a military cooperation agreement and framework regarding the air defence of the entire North American continent, that is coordinated via a bi-national command structure. By nature of geography, Canada and the US necessitates close co-operation on domestic security measures between Canada and the US, especially considering that the two countries possess the longest shared border in the world, and are surrounded by ocean. Thus any threat to either Canada and the US will have to come through either Canada or the US.

3. I expect SAAB will also drop out as well. Same issues with SAAB as with Airbus and Dassault. It should be noted that Canada has never purchased a European designed fighter since the 1950's for North American air defence, and I don't think that will change anytime in the future.

texl1649 · Sat Aug 31, 2019 11:38 am

With the election pending in November there, is this expected to finally be re-decided after that?

queb · Sat Aug 31, 2019 11:45 pm

texl1649 wrote:
With the election pending in November there, is this expected to finally be re-decided after that?

Eligible suppliers have until early 2020 to submit their proposals to Canada.

Ozair · Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:28 am

Revelation wrote:
Sounds like sour grapes from a player upset that they could not sell last generation hardware at top dollar.

We know Airbus, and BAE, and both developing new aircraft that would enter service approx 10 years after the last Canadian jet was delivered. In that context it would seem crazy for Canada to invest so much in the Eurofighter, and expect it to last the next 30+ years, for its primary operators to then start replacing it ten years later.

YIMBY wrote:
Very bad policy form Canadian government. They end up paying extra for F-35. Even if they have predecided to buy that they should have pretended to keep all bidders in equal level up to the end to preserve their negotiation power (like e.g. Finland does even though it is very likely that some will not meet the demands or misses the deadline).

As has been pointed out the cost of the F-35 doesn't change for Canada given they are a JSF partner nation.

YIMBY wrote:
What is that NORAD all about? It is a political framework, but is it mostly aimed to keep Canada with US hardware? Does Canada have anything to say on it?

NORAD is most certainly not a political framework. It is a component of the most important alliance Canada has. It is worth noting that Trudeau withdrew aircraft from the Middle east to focus on the NORAD mission, it remains Canada's highest priority for Air Force.

YIMBY wrote:
Is SAAB now only a nominal candidate?

SAAB was always a nominal candidate. I expect they will withdraw as well at some point before final submission.

YIMBY wrote:
Fortunately Canada is one of the few countries that can afford using aging planes and could even buy without risk a third best alternative, if political winds turn into that direction.

Why would they want to buy an aging aircraft? The competition selection is factored 60% capability, 20% economic benefit and 20% cost. Clearly the Canadians want an aircraft that performs and are willing to pay to get that.

smithbs wrote:
My reading of the article was that Airbus was upset that they had to put up 100% economic offset (and agreed to do so) whereas the Canadian government relaxed that requirement for LM, because the F-35 universe doesn't work that way. Apparently Boeing was also not happy with the economic offset situation.

The interesting thing is that economic benefit is only 20% of the selection criteria. The Eurofighter was always going to cost more than the other contenders and was less capable than the F-35 and perhaps the SH. Running a competition like this costs the bidders money and given the low probability of an Airbus win it shouldn't surprise they withdrew.

queb wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
With the election pending in November there, is this expected to finally be re-decided after that?

Eligible suppliers have until early 2020 to submit their proposals to Canada.

Yes and the competition, while a small topic of political debate, has bi-partisan support in Canada. The only risk is that if the Trudeau Government is re-elected they may prolong the competition again by prioritizing other funding over military modernization. Given the state of the RCAF fighter force that would likely see a further reduction in capability and increased loss of trained personnel already leaving in significant numbers because of these types of issues.

ThePointblank · Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:27 am

The big issue with the NORAD requirement is that any future fighter needs to work seamlessly with American aircraft, which means being integrated into the US intelligence sharing systems. That not only means datalinks with other aircraft and with ground radar, but also connectivity with American intelligence systems, of which gaining access is something the Americans guard extremely jealously.

While the US has indicated that they will make it work with whatever aircraft we do choose, it is a lot of added work and effort on the part of the European manufacturers have to do in comparison to what both Lockheed Martin and Boeing will have to do to ensure that their aircraft will work seamlessly with very sensitive American intelligence systems.

YIMBY · Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:58 am

Ozair wrote:
As has been pointed out the cost of the F-35 doesn't change for Canada given they are a JSF partner nation.

Didn't they withdraw from that? Are they allowed to re-enter with the same benefits?

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
What is that NORAD all about? It is a political framework, but is it mostly aimed to keep Canada with US hardware? Does Canada have anything to say on it?

NORAD is most certainly not a political framework. It is a component of the most important alliance Canada has. It is worth noting that Trudeau withdrew aircraft from the Middle east to focus on the NORAD mission, it remains Canada's highest priority for Air Force.

Making alliances is absolutely political.

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Fortunately Canada is one of the few countries that can afford using aging planes and could even buy without risk a third best alternative, if political winds turn into that direction.

Why would they want to buy an aging aircraft?

Whether anyone really wanted that, I do not know, but they were left with no choice after political cul-de-sac.

ThePointblank · Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:21 am

YIMBY wrote:
Didn't they withdraw from that? Are they allowed to re-enter with the same benefits?

Nope, still making the payments.

YIMBY wrote:
Making alliances is absolutely political.

NORAD was borne out of necessity. There's no way Canada is able to effectively able to monitor and defend all of it's air space without assistance from the US. The Americans need to be able to monitor the approaches to the continental US, and has the resources to monitor and defend North American air space, but the most direct route to the US for most threats goes through Canada.

Therefore, by having Canada and the US cooperate on air defence of the entire North American continent, the Americans have access to our territory so they can monitor the key approaches, while Canada gets access to American resources so they can effectively monitor what's going on in its territory.

Ozair · Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:16 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Ozair wrote:
As has been pointed out the cost of the F-35 doesn't change for Canada given they are a JSF partner nation.

Didn't they withdraw from that? Are they allowed to re-enter with the same benefits?

As Pointblank explained, no they haven’t withdrawn and ironically their yearly payments have actually increased since the Canadian Government changed from 65 to 88 aircraft.

Canada is being forced to shoulder a bigger share of the costs of developing F-35 fighter jets even though it has not decided whether it will actually buy any.
Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter's multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.
Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it's expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year.
But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government's plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada's aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88.
Even though Canada has not committed that those 88 jets will be F-35s, the Department of National Defence says that change means it will have to pay more to remain a partner — including about $72 million this year.
"Canada's costs under the F-35 (partnership agreement) are based on an intended fleet size," Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email.
"Canada changed its fleet size within the F-35 (agreement) from 65 to 88 aircraft to align with government decisions on the size of the intended permanent fighter fleet to be acquired through competition and the payment increased accordingly."
…
The Trudeau government says it plans to keep Canada in the F-35 development effort until a replacement for the CF-18s is chosen — partners in the development work can buy the planes at a lower price and compete for work associated with their production and long-term maintenance.
Canadian companies have so far won more than $1.2 billion in contracts related to the F-35, according to the government.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.4999240

YIMBY wrote:
Whether anyone really wanted that, I do not know, but they were left with no choice after political cul-de-sac.

You may not know but the Canadian Government and the RCAF does. Canada needs a fighter jet to last probably the next 50 years. The current fleet of CF-18s will serve until they are almost 50 years old (first aircraft delivered in 1982) and the replacement will likely need to get close to that age. In that context it is clearly understandable why the program focuses on capability over economic benefit with the irony that the F-35 likely offers more industry participation than any other offering given the program size and number expected to be delivered.

smithbs · Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:43 pm

Ozair wrote:
smithbs wrote:
My reading of the article was that Airbus was upset that they had to put up 100% economic offset (and agreed to do so) whereas the Canadian government relaxed that requirement for LM, because the F-35 universe doesn't work that way. Apparently Boeing was also not happy with the economic offset situation.

The interesting thing is that economic benefit is only 20% of the selection criteria. The Eurofighter was always going to cost more than the other contenders and was less capable than the F-35 and perhaps the SH. Running a competition like this costs the bidders money and given the low probability of an Airbus win it shouldn't surprise they withdrew.

Reading the article, I was left with the impression that originally the requirement was 100% economic offset, which Airbus agreed to, and then it was relaxed to keep LM in the game. Was it always 20% and Airbus is saying they agreed 100% to 20%?

I'm not sold on the capability argument either. While Eurofighter might not be the most capable, it certainly isn't incapable. And as the Canadian government seems to be proving, the decision is as much as about economic, trade and currency factors than it is capability. Has it really been an argument over straight-up capability that has made this process so long, convoluted and painful?

Ozair · Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:03 am

smithbs wrote:
Ozair wrote:
smithbs wrote:
My reading of the article was that Airbus was upset that they had to put up 100% economic offset (and agreed to do so) whereas the Canadian government relaxed that requirement for LM, because the F-35 universe doesn't work that way. Apparently Boeing was also not happy with the economic offset situation.

The interesting thing is that economic benefit is only 20% of the selection criteria. The Eurofighter was always going to cost more than the other contenders and was less capable than the F-35 and perhaps the SH. Running a competition like this costs the bidders money and given the low probability of an Airbus win it shouldn't surprise they withdrew.

Reading the article, I was left with the impression that originally the requirement was 100% economic offset, which Airbus agreed to, and then it was relaxed to keep LM in the game. Was it always 20% and Airbus is saying they agreed 100% to 20%?

The tender likely included a stipulation that the successful vendor had to input 100% of the contract value into the Canadian economy. The 20% is how the economic benefit of the respective submissions is graded within the overall tender. As with the last fighter selection for Canada, when they chose the F-18 over the F-16, the evaluation team reviewed how and where the offsets were going to be allocated. There is obviously a difference with claiming offsets for potentially low technology work compared to higher technology sectors.

So my reading is that the economic benefit was always 20% of the selection and that 20% would be graded on true value to the Canadian economy. It was almost certainly a go no go point as you suggest, that a bidders submission would have been deemed invalid if they didn’t met the 100% offset stipulation.

Now the ability for Canada to remain in the JSF program was contingent on their MOU signed, by the last Liberal Government before Trudeau, in Feb 2002.

Cabinet approval paved the way for the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and the United States concerning Canadian participation in the SDD phase as a Level 3 partner. The MOU was signed on 7 February 2002 by Allan Williams, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, and Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, on behalf of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
…

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/ ... 0207-e.htm

smithbs wrote:
I'm not sold on the capability argument either. While Eurofighter might not be the most capable, it certainly isn't incapable.

We have a very good idea of the capabilities of the respective jets as evaluated by Denmark.

As already discussed by virtue of production volume the F-35 is cheaper to acquire and will be to sustain especially noting it is already NORAD certified. So if the F-35 wins on capability and wins on cost over the Eurofighter then the only in Airbus has is the economic offset. Given Canada cannot legally run a contest that requires 100% offset while it remains a member of the JSF SDD program, and as already demonstrated continues to pay its yearly dues and shown no desire to withdraw, it removes the only point at which the Eurofighter was competitive.

smithbs wrote:
And as the Canadian government seems to be proving, the decision is as much as about economic, trade and currency factors than it is capability. Has it really been an argument over straight-up capability that has made this process so long, convoluted and painful?

I think the decision to delay the program today is a culmination of things. First Trudeau’s need to separate his Opposition government’s Defence policy from that of the Conservatives in 2015, second the attempt to follow up on that promise, third the hole the Trudeau Government landed in after that with Boeing, fourth Trudeau’s overspending on other budget areas and delaying military procurement and finally the failure and waste associated with acquiring RAAF Hornets.

If you asked the RCAF, they have been adamant for a long time that they want the F-35. The Trudeau Government has removed multiple RCAF reports and assessments that have indicated the future threat and the types and capability of aircraft required to survive in that future threat environment. For the RCAF, is has always been about capability.

YIMBY · Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:05 am

ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Didn't they withdraw from that? Are they allowed to re-enter with the same benefits?

Nope, still making the payments.

So you keep paying the development costs for nothing and have an option to purchase the F-35 at the discounted price?

What are you then waiting for? Retirement of Trump? New elections?

ThePointblank wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
Making alliances is absolutely political.

NORAD was borne out of necessity. There's no way Canada is able to effectively able to monitor and defend all of it's air space without assistance from the US. The Americans need to be able to monitor the approaches to the continental US, and has the resources to monitor and defend North American air space, but the most direct route to the US for most threats goes through Canada.

Therefore, by having Canada and the US cooperate on air defence of the entire North American continent, the Americans have access to our territory so they can monitor the key approaches, while Canada gets access to American resources so they can effectively monitor what's going on in its territory.

An independent country always has freedom to choose its alliance partners. It is a questions of values and interests (i.e. politics). Like USA (Roosevelt) first kept officially neutral in WW2 and then in 1941 chose Stalin over Hitler despite different voices in the country. Canada chose to ally with the USA because their values were more aligned than Soviet Union, for example. I am certainly not criticizing those choices.

There certainly is a way for Canada to monitor and to defend its airspace. It just costs a lot. That again is a political choice, whether you want to invest huge amounts of taxpayers' money to be a military superpower or at least militarily independent or self-contained.

Or are you referring with "necessity" to overt or covert pressure by the US government?

ThePointblank · Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:39 am

YIMBY wrote:
So you keep paying the development costs for nothing and have an option to purchase the F-35 at the discounted price?

What are you then waiting for? Retirement of Trump? New elections?

Because the current PM decided to put his foot in his mouth during the 2016 election and promised not to buy the F-35, while buying a replacement aircraft in a 'open and fair' competition.

Problem is that you can't exclude bidders from a competition without breaking the law, which was made abundantly clear by government lawyers once the current government got elected... so we are in this sort of political limbo because of politics.

YIMBY wrote:
An independent country always has freedom to choose its alliance partners. It is a questions of values and interests (i.e. politics). Like USA (Roosevelt) first kept officially neutral in WW2 and then in 1941 chose Stalin over Hitler despite different voices in the country. Canada chose to ally with the USA because their values were more aligned than Soviet Union, for example. I am certainly not criticizing those choices.

There certainly is a way for Canada to monitor and to defend its airspace. It just costs a lot. That again is a political choice, whether you want to invest huge amounts of taxpayers' money to be a military superpower or at least militarily independent or self-contained.

Or are you referring with "necessity" to overt or covert pressure by the US government?

When you share the the longest border in the world with a major world power, you have been in a military alliance with said power since World War II, and the overall national defence interests of both Canada and the US align regarding the North American continent, there tends to be an agreement to cooperate. Especially considering Canada doesn't have the resources to effectively monitor and respond to situations for most of the country...

mxaxai · Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:23 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
So you keep paying the development costs for nothing and have an option to purchase the F-35 at the discounted price?

What are you then waiting for? Retirement of Trump? New elections?

Because the current PM decided to put his foot in his mouth during the 2016 election and promised not to buy the F-35, while buying a replacement aircraft in a 'open and fair' competition.

Problem is that you can't exclude bidders from a competition without breaking the law, which was made abundantly clear by government lawyers once the current government got elected... so we are in this sort of political limbo because of politics.

From the article in this thread's OP:

The Star wrote:
The previous Conservative government had originally announced its intention to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s in 2010, but then put that decision on hold in late 2012 after the auditor general flagged concerns about the potential price tag.

During the 2015 federal election, the Liberals declared that the controversial F-35 would not be a contender for the air force, a vow they have now overturned with their declaration Tuesday that “no firm will be excluded” from the competition.

It seems as if Trudeau is not solely at fault here. Now the question is, is Canada unhappy with the price the US forces are paying (which supposedly is cheaper than any other available fighter), or is their price tag somehow higher? Or is this simply a measure to delay F-35 deliveries?

In any case, the Canadians position is poor:
Own jet: Unrealistic
FCAS / Tempest: Too far out
Gripen: Lack of capability (likely)
Eurofighter, Rafale: Withdrawn due to political framework
F-18: Undesirable due to Boeing's political meddling
F-35: Too expensive ...

They can only choose the least bad option, if they have a choice at all.

Ozair · Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:05 pm

mxaxai wrote:
From the article in this thread's OP:
The Star wrote:
The previous Conservative government had originally announced its intention to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s in 2010, but then put that decision on hold in late 2012 after the auditor general flagged concerns about the potential price tag.

During the 2015 federal election, the Liberals declared that the controversial F-35 would not be a contender for the air force, a vow they have now overturned with their declaration Tuesday that “no firm will be excluded” from the competition.

It seems as if Trudeau is not solely at fault here.

Not quite. Yes the Auditor general came in and investigated the proposed budget and increases in program cost. It is worth reading this link, https://cdainstitute.ca/wp-content/uplo ... ec2012.pdf that articulates the various cost assessments undertaken and how they differed in total. The key note being that the Auditor General used a different timeframe to measure the life cycle costs of the program than the DND and therefore obviously came up with a different answer.

mxaxai wrote:
Now the question is, is Canada unhappy with the price the US forces are paying (which supposedly is cheaper than any other available fighter), or is their price tag somehow higher? Or is this simply a measure to delay F-35 deliveries?

Canada pays the same price as Australia, the UK, the US or any of the Partner nations for the jet. Now each may have differing costs for bringing the aircraft into service or take additional options, such as a braking chute, but the cost of the base airframe is the same. It is very easy to see this cost if you simply look at the news reports of the contracts signed by the JPO on behalf of the partner nations. Those contracts include partner and FMS orders and the cost used to calculate fly away is the same for each partner.

That is the benefit of being a partner in the F-35 SDD program, and besides the industrial benefits why the respective nations signed up to it, compared to Canada’s potential order of the SH. The Canadian Government had mistakenly believed that they would get the US fly away price while instead being offered a price twice as much…

mxaxai wrote:
In any case, the Canadians position is poor:
Own jet: Unrealistic
FCAS / Tempest: Too far out
Gripen: Lack of capability (likely)
Eurofighter, Rafale: Withdrawn due to political framework
F-18: Undesirable due to Boeing's political meddling
F-35: Too expensive ...

I don’t think that represents the competition accurately. Eurofighter and Rafale withdrew because the cost to meet the NORAD requirements was too great thus making their bids uncompetitive, not the political framework around that agreement.

I also think Boeing is in with a chance given the legacy Hornet is the current platform and it would be a very smooth transition. The issue remains the USN and RAAF will be retiring their SH by 2040 and Canada will then, with perhaps Kuwait, become the sole operator of the jet.

The F-35 is not too expensive to acquire but there is still risk it will remain too expensive to sustain for the long term. I expect that risk is lowering though as more current block jets reach the global fleet and, when Canada acquires in 2025, the platform will be mature in Blk 4 with 1000+ flying globally…

mxaxai wrote:
They can only choose the least bad option, if they have a choice at all.

No least bad option, the SH, Gripen and F-35 are all good jets and they have a choice on any of them. The issue to balance is not choosing the F-35 automatically removes them from the JSF SDD program and therefore a big loss to Canadian Industry. The irony is the Trudeau Government’s indecision has played most in favour of the F-35. Had they run their fair and open competition in 2016-17, instead of seeking an interim capability, the F-35 at tender may have been more expensive than the other options. Today with production stabilized at 130+ that is not the case.

TObound · Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:04 am

Some notes for those who don't understand procurement in Canada.

100% offset is a longstanding requirement for defence purchases. 100% of the economic value of the contract must be spent in Canada. At times, OEMs have bought furniture in Canada to close the gap. Where possible we negotiate a "direct component". This is the percentage of the contract that is going to the aerospace and defence sector in Canada.

While the economic component of the competition is 20%, the rated requirement/scoring of the economic component is likely to be based on what percentage of work will go to the aerospace and defence sectors. Building an assembly line in Canada would go a long way to making alternatives to the F-35 competitive in this regard.

On the issue of NORAD certification, this is also a longstanding policy. Dunno if Airbus thought we'd wave it. There's no way, Canada's most important security relationship was going to be jeapordized by making a non-certifiable jet our sole fighter fleet, due to operate under NORAD command. The certification has various complexities. Requires that certain sensitive equipment only be handled by Canadians and Americans. Which means not just assembly, but a full third line facility that was certifiable. Not impossible. But doubtful if it's worthwhile for < 90 frames. I fully expect Saab to reach this conclusion too.

It's going to come down to the Super Hornet and the Lightning. And with the Lightning favoured to win, they've scheduled the competition to only take bids in 2020, giving the Liberals plenty of time to recover from ordering the F-35 after they (boneheadedly) promised never to buy it.

Should note, major upgrades are planned for the CF18 fleet. Expected to remain in service till 2032, with the new fighter not being delivered till end middle of the next decade.

YIMBY · Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:10 am

TObound wrote:
On the issue of NORAD certification, this is also a longstanding policy. Dunno if Airbus thought we'd wave it. There's no way, Canada's most important security relationship was going to be jeapordized by making a non-certifiable jet our sole fighter fleet, due to operate under NORAD command. The certification has various complexities. Requires that certain sensitive equipment only be handled by Canadians and Americans. Which means not just assembly, but a full third line facility that was certifiable. Not impossible. But doubtful if it's worthwhile for < 90 frames. I fully expect Saab to reach this conclusion too.

Set of protectionist rules to show that USA does not trust its European allies, neither Australian.

While in reverse...

ThePointblank · Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:38 am

YIMBY wrote:
TObound wrote:
On the issue of NORAD certification, this is also a longstanding policy. Dunno if Airbus thought we'd wave it. There's no way, Canada's most important security relationship was going to be jeapordized by making a non-certifiable jet our sole fighter fleet, due to operate under NORAD command. The certification has various complexities. Requires that certain sensitive equipment only be handled by Canadians and Americans. Which means not just assembly, but a full third line facility that was certifiable. Not impossible. But doubtful if it's worthwhile for < 90 frames. I fully expect Saab to reach this conclusion too.

Set of protectionist rules to show that USA does not trust its European allies, neither Australian.

While in reverse...

The Americans are hyper sensitive about whom has access to their intelligence systems; considering the amount of resources the US puts into their intelligence programs, it is not surprising that the US is very reluctant to allow access to foreign countries into their most sensitive intelligence systems. There are things the Americans are even reluctant to share with Canada, and we are among their closest allies.

TObound · Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:09 pm

YIMBY wrote:
TObound wrote:
On the issue of NORAD certification, this is also a longstanding policy. Dunno if Airbus thought we'd wave it. There's no way, Canada's most important security relationship was going to be jeapordized by making a non-certifiable jet our sole fighter fleet, due to operate under NORAD command. The certification has various complexities. Requires that certain sensitive equipment only be handled by Canadians and Americans. Which means not just assembly, but a full third line facility that was certifiable. Not impossible. But doubtful if it's worthwhile for < 90 frames. I fully expect Saab to reach this conclusion too.

Set of protectionist rules to show that USA does not trust its European allies, neither Australian.

While in reverse...

The rest of the world can say what they want. But when we share the continent and joint command of forces (there are Canadians in charge of American forces and vice versa) this is not a trivial matter to us.

It's the price of doing business in Canada. It's up to each bidder to decide whether the effort is worth the profit.

keesje · Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:42 pm

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.

Ozair · Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:11 pm

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...

Ozair · Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:29 pm

As expected Saab is also considering whether it is worth submitting a final bid.

Sweden's Saab undecided on whether to bid on Canada's fighter-jet contract

Swedish fighter-jet maker Saab says it has not decided whether it will participate in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

Saab’s Gripen fighter is the only non-U.S. plane still in possible contention after fellow European firm Airbus Defence and Space pulled its Eurofighter Typhoon from the race last week.

Airbus blamed the cost that non-North American companies must bear to ensure their planes meet a specific security requirement, which French firm Dassault had also cited when it withdrew its Rafale fighter from the competition last year.

Airbus also took issue with the Canadian government’s decision to ease a policy that required bidders to legally commit to investing in Canada following a U.S. complaint that the policy violated Canada’s agreement as a partner in developing the F-35 stealth fighter.

Saab Canada president Simon Carroll tells The Canadian Press his company is very interested in entering the Gripen into the Canadian fighter-jet competition but is still reviewing the security requirement, among others, before making a decision.

Boeing’s Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 are the other two fighters beside the Gripen still in contention in the high-stakes competition, which officially kicked off in July.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/09/03 ... -contract/

mxaxai · Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:34 pm

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.

Airbus and Dassault have clearly decided that the cost of a dedicated FAL (handling of certain parts only by certain personnel etc.) is not worth the small Canadian order. Saab will come to the same conclusion, unless they want to create a new FAL in Canada. Canada does not want to step out of NORAD, and I don't blame them. But why they'd bother with this farce of a competition is still beyond me. Any Canadian politician should have seen that NORAD requirements give the US jets a head start.

Of course the 100 % increase in life-cycle costs was a shock (CAD 21 -> 45 bn at first glance; of course the numbers use quite different assumptions). The 16 % increase in fly-away cost is substantial, as well as the resulting exclusion of certain features:

CDA wrote:
Funds allocated to provide Canadian-specific design modifications, including a drag chute and refueling probe, are no longer included. Some of the other initial acquisition costs have been reduced, such as those allocated to infrastructure and initial ammunition purchases.

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
They can only choose the least bad option, if they have a choice at all.

No least bad option, the SH, Gripen and F-35 are all good jets and they have a choice on any of them. The issue to balance is not choosing the F-35 automatically removes them from the JSF SDD program and therefore a big loss to Canadian Industry. The irony is the Trudeau Government’s indecision has played most in favour of the F-35. Had they run their fair and open competition in 2016-17, instead of seeking an interim capability, the F-35 at tender may have been more expensive than the other options. Today with production stabilized at 130+ that is not the case.

It seems likely that Saab will also withdraw. So it comes down to SH vs Lightning. Expecting the F-18 (or any other 4th-gen jet) to last until 2060+ is obviously unrealistic, so this really only leaves the F-35. Hence the lack of choice. Which is undesired for political reasons.

Best would probably be to wait until Trump (and/or Trudeau) are out of office, and order the planned F-35 fleet for delivery around 2030. Wait until the political hype has calmed down. No competition needed, as the price is fixed. If the current fleet runs out of hours, just park them. Instead, use modern simulators for pilot training.

TObound · Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:03 pm

Saab is on the fence as I predicted earlier:

https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/e ... ct-238237/

Let's be clear what this means. They don't need a whole separate FAL in Canada. Though that would help meet offset requirements.

What they need are some secure facilities run by Canadians and Americans for third line maintenance on comms, sensors, and combat systems onboard. It's not terribly onerous. But it does limit their profits. And most may realize it's not worthwhile unless they can roll some of these facilities into a larger American order.

TObound · Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:13 pm

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 is not how our procurement process works. They didn't pre-qualify/dropped out. They are not under consideration. And won't be unless there's a whole new competition. The NORAD rule won't be dropped if there's a new competition either. It's a standing policy for all our aerospace and comms gear for more than the last half century. There's no "workable compromise". You either meet it or get disqualified.

mxaxai wrote:
Of course the 100 % increase in life-cycle costs was a shock (CAD 21 -> 45 bn at first glance; of course the numbers use quite different assumptions). The 16 % increase in fly-away cost is substantial, as well as the resulting exclusion of certain features:...

That increase was caused by the PBO's insistence that DND accounted for lifecycle costs wrong. It's not an actual increase in operating cost, so much as a reflection of the insistence that lifecycle will be longer. Also, 2012 was quite a few years back (in procurement terms). I can guess that much of the costing has probably changed substantially since then. And will change further when you account for the fact that first delivery isn't till the middle of the next decade.

mxaxai wrote:
Best would probably be to wait until Trump (and/or Trudeau) are out of office, and order the planned F-35 fleet for delivery around 2030. Wait until the political hype has calmed down. No competition needed, as the price is fixed. If the current fleet runs out of hours, just park them. Instead, use modern simulators for pilot training.

Politics really has no bearing at this point. This isn't being decided by Trudeau. It's bureaucrats at DND. And they don't change when the Prime Minister changes. Likewise, I don't see how Trump has any bearing at all on the F-35 program selling to us. In fact, it's pretty opportune to buy right now with the Turks getting booted. Their share has to be taken up. And so far, Canadian industry has been doing quite well in the F-35 program, having won $1.5 billion in contracts, on a government contribution of $500 million to date.

Your point about parking aircraft and using simulators is particularly nonsensical. No government is going to leave the country undefended. Least of all one that tried to sole-source Super Hornets claiming that the air force had too few fighters. The current Hornet fleet is going through upgrades to keep them combat capable and structurally sound through to 2032 at least. There's no need to park anything.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net