$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[DogOnPorch]

The test version.

1,000,000 rpm in theory...

Edited July 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[justme]

The new strategy eliminates these problems.

An assumption

Also, changing the design of the ship isn't really a problem either, as it assures our most current needs will be met.

"The JSS wil serve Canada's needs." - Smallc (posted yesterday)

If you have so much confidence in it, why delay replacement ships by a couple years? Can you tell me what these "current needs" are? Of course not, but you can sound like you're regurgitating a press conference.

There will be one shipyard for combat and one for non combat ships. That will mean some will have to wait longer than they should, but they'll get done. Also, the chosen shipyards can contract out some work.

Whether you have one shipyard for large ships and one for small, or one for combat and one for non-combat, it'll still be the better part of a decade or more before you see these ships enter service.

The NDP is wrong. That will simply continue the boom bust cycle that is the problem.

In your opinion. In mine, you are wrong. It doesn't have to be a binary outcome. You can both accelerate the process to deliver replacements in a timely way and put in place a plan to eliminate the cycle.

They can't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't plan.

Sure they can plan, but whatever they put off to the distant future may not materialize at all.

There's no reason to set an arbitrary number of 2%.

Prior to 1994, Canada traditionally invested two percent of GDP on its defence forces, as captured by NATO.14 Its defence investment dramatically declined well below two percent, commencing in 1994. Chart 1 below collaterally highlights a significant decline in Canada’s influence, reputation, and prestige.

Canada argued during this period that it was the real dollars spent that were important. However, a common GDP planning factor may have been considered more important to its NATO allies. Embedded in a common GDP factor was also a level of common burden-sharing. A GDP planning factor is dependent upon the strength of individual economies. It is a measure of the extent of intent to burden share, based upon the strength of an individual country’s economy. As long as Canada stayed at or near the two percent level, a NATO average, it was regarded as a player, and bought influence. Canada sent a signal, by reducing its GDP factor below two percent, that it no longer intended to bear the pain at a common level, and that it was shifting this burden to the Alliance. Others were ‘putting more on the table,’ occasionally in spite of having weaker economies. Although Canada was putting more on the table in terms of real dollars, it was the GDP factor that was of greater importance to the other NATO nations overall. Consequently, Canada’s reputation was considerably damaged, and it virtually lost its seat at the table, despite the fact that it was spending more in real terms than many of its NATO allies. Therefore, the ‘two percent solution’ and the real dollars stemming from it do indeed matter.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no3/06-madigan-eng.asp

And I don't think we should spend money we don't have, even if I'd like to see some of the things.

But you're ok with $16 billion on fighter jets and have yet to object to the billions that the government spends in other areas. Once again, I'm ok with the fighter jets too, but be consistent.

The future navy will be smaller and more capable in terms of the number of ships. The same should be true of the Coast Guard (and many of the ships are already bought and going through the old system).

Sounds like another regurgitated press conference.

Edited July 22, 2010 by justme

[Smallc]

An assumption

Yes, and hopefully a correct one.

"The JSS wil serve Canada's needs." - Smallc (posted yesterday)

If you have so much confidence in it, why delay replacement ships by a couple years? Can you tell me what these "current needs" are? Of course not, but you can sound like you're regurgitating a press conference.

You can't start building them until the shipbuilding agreement is signed.

Whether you have one shipyard for large ships and one for small, or one for combat and one for non-combat, it'll still be the better part of a decade or more before you see these ships enter service.

There is one for combat and one for non combat. Small ships (under 1000 tonnes) will be contracted the old way.

In your opinion. In mine, you are wrong. It doesn't have to be a binary outcome. You can both accelerate the process to deliver replacements in a timely way and put in place a plan to eliminate the cycle.

No you can't, not when you're only talking about about a ship a year.

Sure they can plan, but whatever they put off to the distant future may not materialize at all.

Again, they still have to plan.

But you're ok with $16 billion on fighter jets and have yet to object to the billions that the government spends in other areas. Once again, I'm ok with the fighter jets too, but be consistent.

I generally trust the government and the military to set the priorities.

Sounds like another regurgitated press conference.

Maybe.

[justme]

You can't start building them until the shipbuilding agreement is signed.

Which doesn't answer the question.

No you can't, not when you're only talking about about a ship a year.

And how do you figure when two of five shipyards will be used? I doubt that they'll finish a large ship each year.

Again, they still have to plan.

A plan that may allow a future government to jeopardize the procurement of equipment that the armed forces need.

I generally trust the government....

Although I tend to vote Conservative, I believe a citizen of a democratic country should question government, and I do not agree with everything they do.

[justme]

Back to carriers, some Canadian history:

HMCS Magnificent

One of the last roles of the Magnificent was to transport a Canadian peacekeeping force in response to the Suez crisis. Yes, a carrier was used in what the left considers to be one of Canada's greatest moments.

HMCS_Bonaventure

Carriers are not alien to Canada.

"In 2003, the former Canadian Forces Major General Lewis MacKenzie had declared that Canada must consider a carrier-capable version of the F-35 Lightning II"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Canadian_Amphibious_Assault_Ship

When Harper first ran for office, the Conservative plan called for two carriers.

Rick Hillier agreed that Canada needed what he called, "big honking ships".

An interesting read by Colonel Gary H. Rice, CA/CF Ret’d (linked from an article on The Ottawa Citizen)

It is noteworthy that in a speech delivered at the April 29, 2008 Navy Summit, Honourary Navy Captain, Conservative Senator Hugh D. Segal, boldly advocated the addition of an entirely new and global maritime capability in the form of amphibious ships and said “we need to be able to have it in more than one theatre at a time.”

Later, the esteemed military historian, Dr. Jack Granatstein wrote and expanded upon Senator Segal’s suggestion. “Our sailors must be able to transport and support Canadian troops operating overseas, sometimes perhaps on a hostile shore. The presently planned three Joint Support Ships can’t do this; four might be able to manage, but six would be better, along with what General Rick Hillier called “a big honking ship” that could transport four to six helicopters and a battalion-sized expeditionary force. Such ships can also do humanitarian work -in tsunami-hit Indonesia, for example- that we can scarcely tackle today.”He said. And he was right.

Similar viewpoints addressing the need for a Canadian amphibious capability were also recently expressed in the Conference of Defence Associations Institute’s 2008 Vimy Paper by the former commander of our Pacific Fleet, Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Roger Girouard and Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ken Summers, the former Commander CF Middle East during the 1990 Gulf War. These highly insightful and pointed assessments reinforce the fundamental need and critical lack in Canada’s capability to deploy and support our forces in the world’s littorals from their bases in Canada.

...

This joint seaborne quick reaction force was to have had an initial operating capability by 2007, but unforseen budgetary and operational pressures arising largely from our mission in Afghanistan obliged Mr. Harper’s government to direct the former CDS, General Hillier, to suspend further development until after the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

...

To adequately secure Canada’s interest the nations’ hard power elements must comprise a militarily credible surface, sub surface fleet, and a joint seaborne amphibious capability. For maximum efficiency and effectiveness this force must be fully interoperable with the armed forces of our closest allies in the region: the United States and Australia; the former possessing the world’s most powerful navy and amphibious forces, the latter now swiftly moving to acquire its own modern amphibious capability through the acquisition of a new class of highly capable, minimally crewed and cost efficient amphibious warships.

...

The sad reality of the apparent current situation with regard to the uncertain future of the SCTF, however, may well be that visionary efforts made under the former CDS to implant “jointness” within the CF may now be beginning to give way to much of the same old myopic, parochial and service-centric approaches to the nation’s defence strategy that have so often failed Canada in the past. In this context our navy’s long and continuing lack of purpose built expeditionary amphibious shipping to deliver and support security and humanitarian forces in the world’s littorals at effective and viable levels is seen to represent a critical deficiency in military capability.

It may also be that some politically compliant and newly minted admirals and generals may have failed to face up to the stark reality that the future JSS will have only very limited usefulness in supporting even small unopposed landings. Contrast this with the nation’s amphibious capability that was so effectively demonstrated in 1956 during Operation Rapid Step by Canada’s aircraft carrier, HMCS Magnificent, when it was quickly reconfigured for troop lift and speedily despatched by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in response to the United Nations request to send a peace keeping force to Egypt.

Sadly such a national capability, was destroyed long ago with the scrapping of our last carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, in 1970. Since then we have seen the humiliating consequence of leasing civilian cargo ships and the the GTS Katie incident and in the gallant effort by the ships of Atlantic Command to deliver aid at New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

So long as Parliament, the government of the day, and the Canadian Forces leadership, remain willing to accept that our nation’s future strategic, political and military options will be unnecessarily reduced by the absence of a militarily credible seaborne joint expeditionary capability, Canada, in my opinion, will never live up to its full potential as an influential global middle power.

In view of the geo political importance of this matter and its relationship to the future defence and well being of Canada and its peoples it is time for Mr. Harper to clearly state his government’s intentions with regard to the future fielding of a SCTF with a militarily credible enabling amphibious capability. An early decision to join with the Australians and secure a Canadian equivalent to their new Canberra Class amphibious ships would be a positive and most welcome sign.

http://davidpugliese.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/the-missing-link-in-the-canada-first-defence-strategy/

Edited July 22, 2010 by justme

[DogOnPorch]

There were the two escort carriers from WW2 in RCN hands: Puncher and Nabob. Plus, there was the Warrior which was a loaner until the completion of the Magnificent.

[Handsome Rob]

Bust justification/explanation read to date, this one is a home run:

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2010/07/f-35-project-plane-mission-from-seat.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Bust justification/explanation read to date, this one is a home run:

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2010/07/f-35-project-plane-mission-from-seat.html

Interesting read....no major bones to pick but....

1) Boeing will be upgrading Super Hornet with Block 3 range increase and forward stealth (so called Gen 4.75)

2) Canada cannot/should not compare US force mix decisions as it has far less asset flexibility.

3) Canada will not likely face modern opposition in a vacuum for air superiority or strike missions

4) There is more schedule and cost risk with F-35; Australia and USA are hedging their bet.

5) Canada's assets have been undeployable because of non-platform limitations such as insufficient depot ordnance, targeting pods, IFF suite, and secure radios.

[Moonbox]

1) Boeing will be upgrading Super Hornet with Block 3 range increase and forward stealth (so called Gen 4.75)

Personally I'm not super excited about half-assed stealth addons to a 4.5 generation fighter. We don't need an incrementally better fighter here and incremental improvements to an incrementally better fighter aren't likely going to cut it either. The basics of the F-18E design are from the 70's.

2) Canada cannot/should not compare US force mix decisions as it has far less asset flexibility.

Which is why we should pick the platform the provides us with the broadest range of ability.

3) Canada will not likely face modern opposition in a vacuum for air superiority or strike missions

You're probably right, but that's the way you'd like to keep things. The USA aren't likely to ever need their Ohio or Los Angeles submarines either. That's not to say they shouldn't have them, however.

4) There is more schedule and cost risk with F-35; Australia and USA are hedging their bet.

When you're only buying 65 planes I'm not so sure hedgeing is all that feasible.

[bush_cheney2004]

Personally I'm not super excited about half-assed stealth addons to a 4.5 generation fighter. We don't need an incrementally better fighter here and incremental improvements to an incrementally better fighter aren't likely going to cut it either. The basics of the F-18E design are from the 70's.

So is the F-35 if you want to talk real basics, from VSTOL to speed brakes(from the 50's!). F/A-18 E/F is not the same "basic" aircraft as F/A-18 A/B. F-35 may be a better choice, but it is not the only choice.

Which is why we should pick the platform the provides us with the broadest range of ability.

That remains to be seen....Canadian specification aircraft tend to be Franken-planes or helos that trade performance for that wider range of capability. One that didn't never made it to production (CF-105).

You're probably right, but that's the way you'd like to keep things. The USA aren't likely to ever need their Ohio or Los Angeles submarines either. That's not to say they shouldn't have them, however.

The USA most certainly did/does need Ohio/LA class boats. It actually used/uses them for their intended missions. Will Canada actually deploy squadrons of F-35 aircraft out of country to face this "modern threat"?

When you're only buying 65 planes I'm not so sure hedgeing is all that feasible.

Canada is hedging right now with F/A-18 life extension and upgrades. If you can get a qualified F-35 on time and budget that's great, but history tells us that isn't the high probability outcome.

Edited July 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

And then there were 78:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html

I hope the pilot is okay. This is the only thing that worries me about having so few (65) F-35 jets.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

And then there were 78:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html

I hope the pilot is okay. This is the only thing that worries me about having so few (65) F-35 jets.

I don't follow. How does the crash of the CF-18 at an airshow cause you to worry about having only 65 F-35s? Of course I agree that we should have more than just 65, but I don't see how this particular incident relates.

[Smallc]

I don't follow. How does the crash of the CF-18 at an airshow cause you to worry about having only 65 F-35s? Of course I agree that we should have more than just 65, but I don't see how this particular incident relates.

Because when one crashes (and F-35s will crash), then we only have 64...and 63....and 62....and so on.

[Bonam]

Because when one crashes (and F-35s will crash), then we only have 64...and 63....and 62....and so on.

Yes, whenever a plane crashes, one less plane remains. I'm sure we could arrange to buy more if we needed to in the future to replace losses.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Yes, whenever a plane crashes, one less plane remains. I'm sure we could arrange to buy more if we needed to in the future to replace losses.

I'm sure we could, but that doesn't seem to be our MO.

[Moonbox]

So is the F-35 if you want to talk real basics, from VSTOL to speed brakes(from the 50's!). F/A-18 E/F is not the same "basic" aircraft as F/A-18 A/B. F-35 may be a better choice, but it is not the only choice.

A poor comparison. The Super Hornet is a new airframe but you don't need to be an expert to see it's not an enormous leap forward from the Hornet. Yes, it's a much better plane, but even the US military is going to start replacing them in 15 years. We aren't replacing the F-18 until 2017, so why the hell would we want to replace it with a plane that will be getting replaced in the US in 2024???

The USA most certainly did/does need Ohio/LA class boats. It actually used/uses them for their intended missions.

I was not implying they were useless. I was simply pointing that you purchase and build this equipment with the hope you never have to use it.

If Canada wants to maintain a modern airforce and even entertain the the possibility of being useful support for NATO long term, the Super Hornet is not going to cut it.

Will Canada actually deploy squadrons of F-35 aircraft out of country to face this "modern threat"?

Possibly. My thoughts are that it's better to spend money on something that could deal with such a threat than to spend money on something (Super Hornet) that would be negligibly more useful than our existing aircraft at pounding primitives in the dirt.

Canada is hedging right now with F/A-18 life extension and upgrades. If you can get a qualified F-35 on time and budget that's great, but history tells us that isn't the high probability outcome.

This is true but my thoughts are that it's better not to upgrade at all than to upgrade to the Super Hornet.

[bush_cheney2004]

A poor comparison. The Super Hornet is a new airframe but you don't need to be an expert to see it's not an enormous leap forward from the Hornet. Yes, it's a much better plane, but even the US military is going to start replacing them in 15 years. We aren't replacing the F-18 until 2017, so why the hell would we want to replace it with a plane that will be getting replaced in the US in 2024???

Again, you can't compare Canada's needs and capacity for force structure to what the Americans may or may not do. If one of the main issues is airframe hours and metal fatigue, then a new Super Hornet in 2017 is still a brand new, low hours platform. F-35's will lose that new strike fighter smell just as fast!

I was not implying they were useless. I was simply pointing that you purchase and build this equipment with the hope you never have to use it.

This is simply not true....the Americans use Ohio and Los Angeles class boats everyday for a myriad of things (intelligence gathering, special ops deployment and recovery, cruise missile attacks, strategic deterrent patrols, etc.]

If one can point to a Canadian defined mission profile for F-35 vs. F/A-18 E/F, that would be much better than pointing to what the Americans might do with their Super Hornets in the future.

If Canada wants to maintain a modern airforce and even entertain the the possibility of being useful support for NATO long term, the Super Hornet is not going to cut it.

OK...but the Americans will still be using Super Hornet assets and bring them to bear in the exact same NATO context. Actually, I like the idea of bringing an objective procurement and life cycle cost view to the subject per the linked article, and ignoring the irrelevant comparisons to what America or any other nation is doing. We watched Canada buy licensed CF-188's only to see them wither and sit home because of insufficient supporting logisitics and political tethers, and my OPINION is that this behavior will continue and be exacerbated by the higher F-35 per unit cost.

Possibly. My thoughts are that it's better to spend money on something that could deal with such a threat than to spend money on something (Super Hornet) that would be negligibly more useful than our existing aircraft at pounding primitives in the dirt.

See above...not convinced that Canada will commit enough chips for this gamble. For instance, I'd like to see a comparison of F-16 actual life cycle costs for other nations (and asset up time) compared to the (gotta have two engines) decision by Canada.

This is true but my thoughts are that it's better not to upgrade at all than to upgrade to the Super Hornet.

Replacement for airframe end-of-life is different than upgrading for mission and potential threat(s).

Edited July 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Oddly enough, having two engines can actually increase hangar time for obvious reasons...

[Handsome Rob]

Oddly enough, having two engines can actually increase hangar time for obvious reasons...

In my experiences in the community of fliers, it's coke or pepsi. Less crap to fail VS a lifeline if something brakes. Simplicity or complexity. They used to say the same about 4 engine craft, then along came etops.....everything could be single engine in the future, who knows. Not exactly a make or break point.

[DogOnPorch]

In my experiences in the community of fliers, it's coke or pepsi. Less crap to fail VS a lifeline if something brakes. Simplicity or complexity. They used to say the same about 4 engine craft, then along came etops.....everything could be single engine in the future, who knows. Not exactly a make or break point.

Hey...I'm an advocate of Canada having proper maritime patrol 'bombers'...a fix-it nightmare, I'm sure.

Meanwhile...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html

[DogOnPorch]

And then there were 78:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html

I hope the pilot is okay. This is the only thing that worries me about having so few (65) F-35 jets.

Oooops...double link.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey...I'm an advocate of Canada having proper maritime patrol 'bombers'...a fix-it nightmare, I'm sure.

Meanwhile...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html

Looks like another Martin-Baker ejection seat did it's job very well:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CF-18/cf_18_hornet.htm

[DogOnPorch]

Looks like another Martin-Baker ejection seat did it's job very well:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CF-18/cf_18_hornet.htm

Yes...awesome photo.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...awesome photo.

You can't make this up....CBC reader comment opines that today's CF-18 crash was planned to get support for F-35 procurement !

[DogOnPorch]

You can't make this up....CBC reader comment opines that today's CF-18 crash was planned to get support for F-35 procurement !

Heh..the comment section of CBC probably blames Israel at some point.