F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

Wilber · November 16, 2015

The price of a fighter plane is irrelevant if it can't do what it needs to do when the time comes for it to do something important. We can'y buy a fighter that just does most of the stuff we need it to do.

If we are going to tie ourselves to just one type, that's all we will ever be able to do.

Smallc · November 16, 2015

There are things that you don't know about our military just from reading Jane's. Even if you were in the military you wouldn't know a whole lot about things within your own branch of the service that weren't within your specific field.

The F-18 is a multirole fighter. That is also true of the F-35, the Rafale, and the Super Hornet.

I was never in the air force so I don't know exactly what capabilities the f-18 did have, what it's limitations are/were. That's not just in terms of how far, how fast, how much weight it can take off with, it includes things like what systems it can employ, what it can upgrade to, what types of armaments it can/can't carry, etc. The CF-18 was able to do everything from aid in search and rescue to shy of heavy bombing.

Any platform that we have available will be able to do that.

The price of a fighter plane is irrelevant if it can't do what it needs to do when the time comes for it to do something important. We can'y buy a fighter that just does most of the stuff we need it to do.

That's all we can do.

WestCanMan · November 16, 2015

The F-18 is a multirole fighter. That is also true of the F-35, the Rafale, and the Super Hornet.

Any platform that we have available will be able to do that.

That's all we can do.

If it was just that simple smallc then why are the liberals even comparing them? Why not just go with the cheapest one?

Not all "multi-role fighters" can perform all of the exact same roles, have the same range, can carry all the same missiles, have the same electronic warfare equipment, can take off and land on the same runways, etc.

Trudeau is changing for the sake of change. All he ever did the whole time he was leader of the opposition was bitch about anything and everything.

Wilber · November 16, 2015

Maybe that's what all this is about, just figuring out which is the cheapest one.

WestCanMan · November 16, 2015

Maybe that's what all this is about, just figuring out which is the cheapest one.

If your kid was a fighter pilot would you just want the cheapest one? What if it was visible on radar from an extra 8,000 miles away, or wasn't compatible with the latest radar, or it wasn't compatible with the new missile that came out in 2021, or it had weaker armour, etc?

If he was in the inf and he needed air support would you be ok with the cheapest one if it couldn't get to your kid?

People will be flying these things with the intention of coming home.

It's never about just getting the cheapest one, and they are never all equal.

Trudeau narrowed this down to "just about the money".

Edited November 16, 2015 by WestCanMan

msj · November 16, 2015

Trudeau narrowed this down to "just about the money".

No, Trudeau has specifically asked for this: Work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-services-and-procurement-mandate-letter#sthash.l8a4MGhA.dpuf

Value for money is different than just money.

As a taxpayer that is what I ask of any government.

Wilber · November 16, 2015

As long as it doesn't become the same kind of bogus competition they held for the Sea King replacement. We don't like your choice so make another one.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2015

Well shucks.....let's just hope that the United States, Sweden, France, EU, or Russia can come up with something that satisfies Canada's oh so special defense needs and budget. Kinda like Goldilocks...not too hard...and not too soft...just right.

Canada knows best...that's how it ended up with a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter.

segnosaur · November 16, 2015

Trudeau narrowed this down to "just about the money"

No, Trudeau has specifically asked for this: Work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-services-and-procurement-mandate-letter#sthash.l8a4MGhA.dpuf

Value for money is different than just money.

As a taxpayer that is what I ask of any government.

Actually, during the last election, the Liberal platform as that they were definitely going to "buy something cheaper" (i.e. not just get "value for money", but something that cost less) and divert the supposed savings into naval purchases. Going by that measure, "value for money" never came into it.

Even if the F35 offered better "value for money" (i.e. met our needs better than an alternative, even at a higher price) they would be excluded under the Liberal plan to buy cheap and spend the supposed savings elsewhere.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-liberals-wont-buy-f-35-planes-use-savings-to-increase-navy-spending/article26446887/

Edited November 16, 2015 by segnosaur

Derek 2.0 · November 16, 2015

No, Trudeau has specifically asked for this: Work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-services-and-procurement-mandate-letter#sthash.l8a4MGhA.dpuf

Value for money is different than just money.

As a taxpayer that is what I ask of any government.

Its a bogus narrative, though they might save a small sum on the initial purchase with a legacy aircraft, through life operational costs won't differ regardless what we select, but on the back end of the aircraft's life we will spend more on an orphaned fleet (once the major users of legacy aircraft start retiring them in the 2030) through sheer economies of scale..........this of course is discounting loss of capability and block obsolescence with operating a legacy aircraft designed in the 70s or 80s out into the 2050s-60s.........as I've said countless times, doing such would be akin to operating an aircraft today, designed in the later stages of the second world war-Korean war era.

segnosaur · November 16, 2015

Maybe that's what all this is about, just figuring out which is the cheapest one.

Actually I think it was more about how to score cheap political points, rather than trying to buy the cheapest, or best-value plane. The conservatives were going to spend money on planes, the opposition wanted to paint them as gun-toting yahoos wanting to bankrupt us by buying expensive military toys. Worked for Chretien over the EH101, didn't it?

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2015

....Even if the F35 offered better "value for money" (i.e. met our needs better than an alternative, even at a higher price) they would be excluded under the Liberal plan to buy cheap and spend the supposed savings elsewhere.

Yep.....the F-35 JSF need not apply. The "optics" for selecting the F-35 after all would be....embarrassing.

msj · November 16, 2015

Fair enough.

But to procure aircraft while considering Canada's defence needs makes one wonder, in light of Westcanman's question about wanting one's kid to be in the best aircraft available.

Well, that's all good and fine.

But what about our navy?

Should they have subpar navy vessels then? Would one send their kid out in a subpar vessel?

Etc etc the questions go on and it all comes back to how much money do we have and what gets the best bang for the buck.

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2015

Yep.....the F-35 JSF need not apply. The "optics" for selecting the F-35 after all would be....embarrassing.

No, actually selecting it would be embarrassing. Especially when even the Chineese were laughing at us as they tracked it's "stealthy" little trips across the prairies.

Derek 2.0 · November 16, 2015

As long as it doesn't become the same kind of bogus competition they held for the Sea King replacement. We don't like your choice so make another one.

I would say it will be worse, judging by the resume of the young lady who the Liberals put in charge........a 30 something with just over a decades work experience, in namely HR and finance, over at Fisheries and Oceans........it would seem her educational background is in Political Science, volleyball and track & field.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2015

...Etc etc the questions go on and it all comes back to how much money do we have and what gets the best bang for the buck.

Goes way beyond that....something about defense procurements regardless of the service is anathema to Canada. The dollars are spent grudgingly and not very often. Trucks rust....ships need towing...troops hitch rides. Cheaper to just pay contract cancellation fees.

Wilber · November 16, 2015

I would say it will be worse, judging by the resume of the young lady who the Liberals put in charge........a 30 something with just over a decades work experience, in namely HR and finance, over at Fisheries and Oceans........it would seem her educational background is in Political Science, volleyball and track & field.

Ya, they will probably pick what they think is the cheapest alternative then spend a fortune configuring it for our "unique" requirements. Sound familiar?

Derek 2.0 · November 16, 2015

Fair enough.

But to procure aircraft while considering Canada's defence needs makes one wonder, in light of Westcanman's question about wanting one's kid to be in the best aircraft available.

Well, that's all good and fine.

But what about our navy?

Should they have subpar navy vessels then? Would one send their kid out in a subpar vessel?

Etc etc the questions go on and it all comes back to how much money do we have and what gets the best bang for the buck.

Again, that is bogus, as the Liberals promised no new funding for the navy, just to shift savings from the RCAF's backs to that of the navy....the problem though, there won't be any major savings.......purchasing a legacy aircraft as opposed to the F-35 might afford DND the savings to procure replacements for their aging tugs and auxiliary yard vessels, but not much else.

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2015

Or we could spend a fortune waiting for lock-mart to finally. maybe, configure the bomb truck to a bunch of requirements we don't need. Take your pick.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2015

Ya, they will probably pick what they think is the cheapest alternative then spend a fortune configuring it for our "unique" requirements. Sound familiar?

You got it....that's exactly what will happen. Bye-bye "BIG SAVINGS".

Wilber · November 16, 2015

You got it....that's exactly what will happen. Bye-bye "BIG SAVINGS".

Except once they get their special configuration, they will find out that it no longer meets the original performance specification so they will have to change the specification to match what they wound up with. Bet that sounds familiar to.

Derek 2.0 · November 16, 2015

Ya, they will probably pick what they think is the cheapest alternative then spend a fortune configuring it for our "unique" requirements. Sound familiar?

Like I said above, furthered based on the project head's resume and her 2-3 person staff size, in my opinion, I doubt anything will be selected during this mandate, and that the Government will just wait out the clock on this file post 2019..........and if they do select something, the process will be bogged down by lawsuits for years if they preclude one bidder (Lockheed) by product name in a "fair and open" competition........or worse, end user technology transfer agreements with the US Government thrown into quicksand if we select a non-American aircraft.

segnosaur · November 16, 2015

Fair enough.

But to procure aircraft while considering Canada's defence needs makes one wonder, in light of Westcanman's question about wanting one's kid to be in the best aircraft available.

Well, that's all good and fine.

But what about our navy?

Should they have subpar navy vessels then? Would one send their kid out in a subpar vessel?

Etc etc the questions go on and it all comes back to how much money do we have and what gets the best bang for the buck.

What we should be doing is increasing our defense spending all-around. None of this "we'll cut here to spend more there". We need both a navy AND a properly equiped air force.

Our military spending is falling well short of what it should be. The Conservatives originally showed some promise when they first got into power, but they really fumbled the ball. Sadly, in the last election, no party really seemed to have a handle on military matters.

Derek 2.0 · November 16, 2015

Except once they get their special configuration, they will find out that it no longer meets the original performance specification so they will have to change the specification to match what they wound up with. Bet that sounds familiar to.

Yup, and in doing so, pay more for a lesser capability then what the RCAF defined.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2015

....or worse, end user technology transfer agreements with the US Government thrown into quicksand if we select a non-American aircraft.

Well, some contractors will just walk away from Canada as too big a headache. The original DND New Fighter Aircraft Project in the 1970's was an identical abortion to what they have now. Northrop wanted to logically build an F-18L "land based" variant with more capabilities and performance but Canada balked at being the sole customer for development costs.