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

[Guest Derek L]

Well, hindsight is 20/20, even from a cockpit, but as a casual U.S. observer spoiled by a plethora of multiple and sometimes redundant platforms, I am beginning to question the entire strategy of a single platform buy once per generation! A better mix of platforms staggered over the decades would have left Canada with more options than this all-or-nothing F-35 procurement for aging CF-18's. I think this piece supports your real world experience and observations:

Since 1971, Canada has reduced the number of fighter aircraft in support of global security and homeland security, from over 200 units of multiple types, to less than 80 of a single type, the CF-18 Hornet. At first glance, one would think this should not be a problem with 80 fighters. Yet of these 80 fighters, only 60 are available for mission support at any given time. Twenty CF-18s are assigned to training or testing roles for the air force, and they are not mission ready on a regular and routine basis.

When originally purchased, the CF-18 had a serviceability rate of 80 percent. Since it has passed its original 20-year life expectancy, there are problems arising that normally would not have been encountered in a projected service life. These problems often require parts that need to have special assembly lines established to produce parts for an obsolete aircraft. In no small measure due to the age of Canada’s Hornet fleet, the current unclassified serviceability rate is a little more than 50 percent.⁷ Given this situation, with only 60 fighter aircraft available, Canada does not appear to always be able to meet its NORAD mandate of 36 fighters, let alone the nation’s other commitments.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22051-f-35-purchase-cancelled/page-115#entry938031

It is most defiantly a double-edged sword for smaller air forces and militaries in general……..Commonality breeds synergies in terms of savings for fleet maintenance, training etc which do very much impact a force…..as is even demonstrated with the down select of aircraft types in the various branches of your very own armed forces…..

But by the same token, has negative impacts on industry over a protracted timeframe, the operator and ultimately the tax payers bottom line……..Can you imagine replacing an entire given fleet, be it the HUMVEE, M-16, DDG-51, F-16 etc at one go? Both very expensive in terms of initial outlay and time consuming…..The first unit that replaced it’s HUMVEE would itself be ready for that replacement by the time the last unit to get the HUMVEE replacement get’s theirs…..a never ending spiral which forces a large military such as yours to continually replace obsolete items, well introducing gradual and effective improvements along the way…..

For a middle tier power such as us, a balance must be met and pursued at a bipartisan political level from within the elected Government……Ultimately though, we’ve painted ourselves into a corner.

[bush_cheney2004]

For a middle tier power such as us, a balance must be met and pursued at a bipartisan political level from within the elected Government……Ultimately though, we’ve painted ourselves into a corner.

For sure, and ironically, as the production lines for alternative aircraft are shutting down due to lack of orders. We saw variants of this same painful dance play out in Canada for rotary winged and heavy airlift platforms, so it is not limited to "strike fighters".

[waldo]

…but I digress..

ya think?

[Guest Derek L]

For sure, and ironically, as the production lines for alternative aircraft are shutting down due to lack of orders. We saw variants of this same painful dance play out in Canada for rotary winged and heavy airlift platforms, so it is not limited to "strike fighters".

For certain……Canadian procurement fiascos go all the waaay back to the Ross Rifle and the Boer War……..In many ways, our dithering ends up costing us more money, combat effectiveness and most important of all, lives, then if we had just accepted the proverbial cost of doing business from the start.

[DogOnPorch]

For certain……Canadian procurement fiascos go all the waaay back to the Ross Rifle and the Boer War……..In many ways, our dithering ends up costing us more money, combat effectiveness and most important of all, lives, then if we had just accepted the proverbial cost of doing business from the start.

Yes...it should have been F-86 -----> F-100 -----> F-4 -----> F-18

But, alas.

[waldo]

For certain……Canadian procurement fiascos go all the waaay back to the Ross Rifle and the Boer War……..In many ways, our dithering ends up costing us more money, combat effectiveness and most important of all, lives, then if we had just accepted the proverbial cost of doing business from the start.

proverbial cost of doing business??? you mean the... Derek L 'blank cheque'... whatever it costs, it costs... that proverbial cost of doing business?

remember:

[Guest Derek L]

proverbial cost of doing business??? you mean the... Derek L 'blank cheque'... whatever it costs, it costs... that proverbial cost of doing business?

In some respects, yes. As I said to you before, if our Government requires our armed forces to do “x”, and the military requires “y” to successfully accomplish “x”, then yes, we do indeed need to purchase “y”…….Or the elected Government change “x”……….All post-war to present Canadian Governments have wanted “x”, but many have been reluctant to fund “y”, as a result, they’ve been lucky to get “wtf” from our armed forces:

[waldo]

In some respects, yes. As I said to you before, if our Government requires our armed forces to do “x”, and the military requires “y” to successfully accomplish “x”, then yes, we do indeed need to purchase “y”…….Or the elected Government change “x”……….All post-war to present Canadian Governments have wanted “x”, but many have been reluctant to fund “y”, as a result, they’ve been lucky to get “wtf” from our armed forces:

and the realities of major funding for disparate procurement requirements across the various military branches... of funding domestic requirements for coast guard upgrades... of funding pumped-up Arctic sovereignty claims/aspirations... etc.? Prioritization anyone? I find it quite telling to read all the raised concerns for active military/veterans in the recent military PTSD thread... I don't recall anyone offering up suggestion that procurement prioritizations should be made to "find" required funding to allow appropriate support for active/retired military personnel - go figure... I guess shiny new toys takes precedence, hey?

in any case, I found that recent quote extract from this article quite illuminating... particularly the reference to Canada's difficulty in meeting its combined NORAD/NATO/UN aircraft commitments based on 80 CF-18 planes (with 60 actually available). And somehow... that same commitment will be met with a lesser number of F-35 planes??? Talk about mismatched 'x' and 'y'!

[Guest Derek L]

and the realities of major funding for disparate procurement requirements across the various military branches... of funding domestic requirements for coast guard upgrades... of funding pumped-up Arctic sovereignty claims/aspirations... etc.? Prioritization anyone? I find it quite telling to read all the raised concerns for active military/veterans in the recent military PTSD thread... I don't recall anyone offering up suggestion that procurement prioritizations should be made to "find" required funding to allow appropriate support for active/retired military personnel - go figure... I guess shiny new toys takes precedence, hey?

If there are self imposed funding shortages, prioritization need first be looked at in the context of both the domestic and foreign policies of the Government of Canada……No money for “y” then we can’t do “x”….simple as that.

in any case, I found that recent quote extract from this article quite illuminating... particularly the reference to Canada's difficulty in meeting its combined NORAD/NATO/UN aircraft commitments based on 80 CF-18 planes (with 60 actually available). And somehow... that same commitment will be met with a lesser number of F-35 planes??? Talk about mismatched 'x' and 'y'!

What the article does not further explain is how our current Hornet force and future Lightning force will be organised……Currently we have two operational squadrons (one each in Cold Lake & Bagotville) comprised of 24 aircraft each, for a total of 48 aircraft, and then an operational conversion squadron in Cold Lake of ~24 additional aircraft, with the remaining handful of aircraft as a tiny attrition reserve.

With the 65 F-35s, we’ll still have two operational squadrons of 48 aircraft, but the divergence occurring with initial conversion from the Hawk trainers, to simulators and finally operational aircraft, skipping the conversion step as current with trainer variants of the Hornet in favour of a greater reliance on simulators ……..leaving us with what we currently have in terms of numbers to maintain our NORAD and NATO commitments.

If the given elected Government see RCAF operational fighter numbers as a determent, then they clearly need to either reduce commitments ( to what we currently can accomplish home and abroad) or purchase additional aircraft, train additional pilots and support personal etc to reform one of the Hornet and Freedom Fighter squadrons lost during the Chrétien era cuts.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the given elected Government see RCAF operational fighter numbers as a determent, then they clearly need to either reduce commitments ( to what we currently can accomplish home and abroad) or purchase additional aircraft, train additional pilots and support personal etc to reform one of the Hornet and Freedom Fighter squadrons lost during the Chrétien era cuts.

Why wouldn't Canada just stand up reserve squadrons with the life extended CF-188's beyond 2020 ? Is there no equivalent to U.S. air national guard units ? Let me guess....detractors would complain about the cost of doing so...no surprise there.

[Guest Derek L]

Why wouldn't Canada just stand up reserve squadrons with the life extended CF-188's beyond 2020 ? Is there no equivalent to U.S. air national guard units ? Let me guess....detractors would complain about the cost of doing so...no surprise there.

No equivalent of an Air National Guard or even aircraft “owned” by the reserves ala your AFRC……IIRC the last aircraft solely operated by the reserves here in the same fashion was our last C-47/DC-3s into the 80s, with a slight nod today towards a sole tactical helicopter squadron …….Here our reserves (including the Naval and Army/Militia) component have been for decades focusing at various glacial paces as a individual and small grouping supplementary force to augment the Regular Forces.

For instance, a goodly number of army reservists (and naval, air force and purple trades) from various reserve regiments across Canada severed in regular force units deployed to Afghanistan, but not as a reserve formation…….but army reserve formations are called up for domestic operations (like disaster relief).

With the Naval reserves, individual units provide a given portion towards manning our Kingston patrol vessels, with shortfalls made up by the reg-force…..this of course is leading (and money) to one of the often noted issues within the media of Canadian (Kingston) naval vessels being tied up alongside…..The Navy is currently looking reorganising their model to be more along the lines of the army model, with small groups and individuals augmenting regular force units.

With the air force (and purple trades) you’ll see many of the support trades following along the same model followed by the army, augmenting reg-force units and many of the commissioned positions (pilots and aircrew) doing likewise or taking fulltime “Class C” contracts in areas plagued with shortages and high demand (i.e. training establishments, NDHQ staff positions in the puzzle factory in Ottawa) or filling newly created, often intend short-term, positions…….Myself for example, post 9/11, taking/filling several positions in the group rethink encompassing the inclusion of maritime security into NORAD’s mandate. (Sending naval and maritime focused RCAF personal, along with their USN counterparts, there was akin to a Christian in the Coliseum)

As to forming an actual RCAF reserve force along the lines of ANG unit, that would solely detract, in this fiscal climate, from the regular force…….Though I could most certainly see advantages with the establishment of domestically focused units for transport, SAR and maritime/Arctic surveillance, and in turn the purchase of (domestically produced of course) COTS aircraft, summing that good idea fairy could lead to the downgrade in regular force capabilities………

To a fighter reserve force specifically, the Hornets will be ready for the high desert when they go, and in turn, additional hypothetic funds allocated to the establishment of a reserve fighter squadron would be better placed with the reg-force establishing a third gun-squadron and the allowance of further reserve augmented positions within the three reg-force squadrons.

[bush_cheney2004]

To a fighter reserve force specifically, the Hornets will be ready for the high desert when they go, and in turn, additional hypothetic funds allocated to the establishment of a reserve fighter squadron would be better placed with the reg-force establishing a third gun-squadron and the allowance of further reserve augmented positions within the three reg-force squadrons.

If this be the case, then Canada is already in a death spiral for tactical air regardless of what happens with the F-35. Starvation diet.

[Guest Derek L]

If this be the case, then Canada is already in a death spiral for tactical air regardless of what happens with the F-35. Starvation diet.

In some aspects, but overall deployable numbers of F-35s will equal current Hornets numbers, or 48 aircraft…….Though numerically a sideways move, in terms of actual capability, the Lightning will bring many new capabilities to the RCAF and Canadian Forces that we have not had prior, namely as a linked ISTAR platform that will be a boon not only for the RCAF, but follow on (positive) effects for everything from deployed naval assets, battlefield awareness for mechanized & light ground forces, all the way to a indirect targeting aide for artillery……..

Of course more would be better, but as stated, it’s purchase will buck the past trend of drastically declining numbers felt by drastic inflationary costs in defence procurement….Or better put, going back to the 60s, we replaced fighter wings of Sabres with squadrons of Starfighters and Freedom Fighters, and in turn replaced those to a degree with fewer squadrons of more capable Hornets, which will be replaced (operationally) by an equal number of F-35s…..Obviously with each replacement cycle stark improvements were made to the individual capability (would you rather a tactical fighter wing of Sabres or a squadron of Hornets?), but as is the case with the F-35, well bringing a whole bloody big bag full of tricks to the Canadian Forces, real-term operational numbers won’t decline.

[waldo]

What the article does not further explain is how our current Hornet force and future Lightning force will be organised……

no - the article clearly states the current NORAD/NATO/UN commitments are difficult to support given the numbers and flying capability of the respective CF-18s. Those numbers aren't increasing in the "possible" F-35 procurement. You can slice & dice that complement all you want... there's no way to realize the current commitment without increasing the procurement number. That being said, perhaps this is simply a part of the Harper Conservative charade in the first place... they already tried to low-ball costs to begin with... they already purposely avoided highlighting and addressing actual attrition requirements. What's to say, there hasn't always been a "next phase" intention for a second wave of F-35 procurement... another way to avoid the big-hit, up-front costs, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

…..Obviously with each replacement cycle stark improvements were made to the individual capability (would you rather a tactical fighter wing of Sabres or a squadron of Hornets?), but as is the case with the F-35, well bringing a whole bloody big bag full of tricks to the Canadian Forces, real-term operational numbers won’t decline.

I understand the direct offsets and improved capabilities, but if it is always going to be a dogfight to get funding for recurring and nonrecurring costs, then squadrons of brand new F-35's will go hungry or never exist at all. Canada will buy the F-35, but like other nations, not in originally planned quantities.

As DoP pointed out, previous procurements are directly related to this decision, if only because of the established roles to be played out by the usual suspects...again. How much of a fight was there to procure 138 CF-188's back when disco was popular ?

[waldo]

... but as is the case with the F-35, well bringing a whole bloody big bag full of tricks to the Canadian Forces, real-term operational numbers won’t decline.

tricks are for... kids! I know I get no response from you whenever I bring up the actual past F-35 OT&E reports (particularly the most recent which was a scathing indictment on the lack of progress and/or the reduced standards to jig testing results, etc.)... but there's another one due in early 2014. Care to relay any LockMart propaganda that presumes to speak positively on the expected results of the next OT&E report?

[Guest Derek L]

no - the article clearly states the current NORAD/NATO/UN commitments are difficult to support given the numbers and flying capability of the respective CF-18s. Those numbers aren't increasing in the "possible" F-35 procurement. You can slice & dice that complement all you want... there's no way to realize the current commitment without increasing the procurement number. That being said, perhaps this is simply a part of the Harper Conservative charade in the first place... they already tried to low-ball costs to begin with... they already purposely avoided highlighting and addressing actual attrition requirements. What's to say, there hasn't always been a "next phase" intention for a second wave of F-35 procurement... another way to avoid the big-hit, up-front costs, hey?

I understand that……..like I said earlier with needing “y” to do “x”…….But the purchase of the F-35 in the planned numbers won’t detract from the Government of Canada’s planned “x” needs, all the while the greater serviceability and integrated, standardized worldwide supply and support chain for the F-35 will allow the semblance of the RCAF’s 80% availability rate throughout it‘s life……….

To the article specifically, the creation of the problem was of the Governments own making, in that during the cited timeframe the RCAF was/is operating aircraft in their 30s (now approaching their 40s) and undertaking a solely self funded service life extension to bring them to early 1990s standards (in the 2000s)…..With all the F-35s, of all the user nations, ongoing, standardized upgrades with keep the entire force concurrent with one another, eliminating costly and delayed upgrades born on individual users.

Now if you’re suggesting that the Government of Canada should expand the RCAF’s fighter force to a level somewhere between it’s current size and the pre Chrétien era, I agree fully.

[Guest Derek L]

I understand the direct offsets and improved capabilities, but if it is always going to be a dogfight to get funding for recurring and nonrecurring costs, then squadrons of brand new F-35's will go hungry or never exist at all. Canada will buy the F-35, but like other nations, not in originally planned quantities.

I think funding issues associated with the operational costs of a modern fighter force, like historic, will be there regardless of the RCAF facing a Conservative or even Liberal Government, after all the costing is only roughly ~5% of DND annual budget…….now an NDP government…god help us.

As to numbers, I've no concern about the initial 65 aircraft being purchased, but sometime circa ~2035 as F-35 production wanes, a attrition purchase will become an eventuality…….Now if the prior PC government had of took-up our option for a squadron’s worth of additional Hornets in the late 80s and again in the early 90s, we wouldn’t be in the boat we’re in today……likewise with the Chrétien government retiring 1/3rd of the Hornet force, in addition to the remaining CF-5 fleet.

[Guest Derek L]

tricks are for... kids! I know I get no response from you whenever I bring up the actual past F-35 OT&E reports (particularly the most recent which was a scathing indictment on the lack of progress and/or the reduced standards to jig testing results, etc.)... but there's another one due in early 2014. Care to relay any LockMart propaganda that presumes to speak positively on the expected results of the next OT&E report?

You’ll find the old adage of actions speaking louder then propaganda telling…….namely the moving forward of the IOC dates for both the USAF and Marines…….I look forward to the public release and in turn, the political ammunition that will allow partner nations (including Canada) to put their money upon the barrel head....Bring it on!!

[Guest Derek L]

As DoP pointed out, previous procurements are directly related to this decision, if only because of the established roles to be played out by the usual suspects...again. How much of a fight was there to procure 138 CF-188's back when disco was popular ?

The Hornet was the end result based on it’s radar and integration of the Sparrow……I’m certain the PET Government would have selected the cheaper F-16 if it was able to do NORAD for us at the time……The RCAF of course wanted the F-15, followed by the F-14.…

[bush_cheney2004]

As to numbers, I've no concern about the initial 65 aircraft being purchased, but sometime circa ~2035 as F-35 production wanes, a attrition purchase will become an eventuality…….Now if the prior PC government had of took-up our option for a squadron’s worth of additional Hornets in the late 80s and again in the early 90s, we wouldn’t be in the boat we’re in today……likewise with the Chrétien government retiring 1/3rd of the Hornet force, in addition to the remaining CF-5 fleet.

Agreed, so now it is just a numbers game based on the politics. Canadian labour interests want to see continued subcontracts for the run of the program, so Canada won't just walk away. Add some concessions for political purposes, and the buy is down to 48 or less, with options for more. I also agree that conditions will be more favourable as operational units come on line and cost curves stabilize or even bend downward.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Hornet was the end result based on it’s radar and integration of the Sparrow……I’m certain the PET Government would have selected the cheaper F-16 if it was able to do NORAD for us at the time……The RCAF of course wanted the F-15, followed by the F-14.…

OK, but was there a "fight" ? Was there a long, protracted, ideolicical and political struggle over "guns or butter", or did the full on Cold War steamroll any such objections ? I guess the RCAF wanted 200 initially, but only got 138.

F-14's ? Iran got them, but not Canada !

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed, so now it is just a numbers game based on the politics. Canadian labour interests want to see continued subcontracts for the run of the program, so Canada won't just walk away. Add some concessions for political purposes, and the buy is down to 48 or less, with options for more. I also agree that conditions will be more favourable as operational units come on line and cost curves stabilize or even bend downward.

No, the initial buy will be in the 65 aircraft neighbourhood to fully replace the Hornets, fore even with 48 operational aircraft in the two gun squadrons, we’ll still require the additional 15+ aircraft for deep maintenance, training aides for ground & aircrew, attrition and rotating aircraft from the operational squadrons to spread out airframe life………

With that said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the purchase was broken up into two, possibly three, separate purchases along the same lines as what other partners are doing……..thusly allowing a smallish financial outlay prior to our next Federal election

[bush_cheney2004]

With that said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the purchase was broken up into two, possibly three, separate purchases along the same lines as what other partners are doing……..thusly allowing a smallish financial outlay prior to our next Federal election

Yes...that's the way these things are usually done given fiscal and political realities. That's why we only got 21 B-2 Spirits instead of the planned 132. plus no more Soviet Union to nuke.

[Guest Derek L]

OK, but was there a "fight" ? Was there a long, protracted, ideolicical and political struggle over "guns or butter", or did the full on Cold War steamroll any such objections ? I guess the RCAF wanted 200 initially, but only got 138.

F-14's ? Iran got them, but not Canada !

At the time, the PET Government was being shamed by our European NATO partners into replacement, once replacement and renewal was deemed important, the typical procurement pork barrelling was played out……strangely enough with Quebec sovereignists favouring a Canadian Quebec built F-16, all the while questioning the patriotism of PET (and briefly Joe Clark) for favouring an “American built aircraft”…..

As to the F-14, we really came close to purchasing them off of the Revolutionary Government of Iran once they realised they’d have no contractor support from Uncle Sam…..with us likely then looking towards a supplementary purchase of probably F-16s or A-7s for Europe……Of course the Iraq/Iran war changed that….