Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

under what obligation is Canada required to open up to a competition what is simply an upgrade path from the Hornet to Super-Hornet?

.

Our own laws and procurement guidelines.........the Government can't justify "simply an upgrade path" worth billions of dollars from our current fleet to a different aircraft, that was mentioned by name in the Liberal platform, on a whim .......well they could, but they will be sued by all the other aircraft makers in short order and loose.

...........especially when there is an even cheaper alternative in the F-16, an aircraft that has been the mainstay of NORAD since it entered service, and has been continually operated in the Arctic (unlike the Super Hornet) by three of our NATO allies (USA/Norway/Denmark) since the 1970s....

[Derek 2.0]

I guess you're not aware of the process to follow to warrant exceptions to GCR sole source -

I'm well aware......and in this case, they don't apply, namely when there are alternative aircraft, in some cases, even cheaper, that we could procure.......

The Liberals would have to explain why the Super Hornet and not the F-16/F-15/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen and any possible lease/purchases of used aircraft from our allies........this would get tricky when the F-16 is cheaper than the Super Hornet, or several of our European allies have surplus aircraft that we could lease for interim types.

[waldo]

like I said, apparently you're unaware of the process for exceptions to GCR sole source: 3.15.1 Justification of Non-competitive Process

again, you just said the, "Liberals weren't stupid"... do you think they don't have the exception covered... do you think government lawyers haven't been all over this like the proverbial 'dirty-shirt'?

.

Edited June 6, 2016 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

like I said, apparently you're unaware of the process for exceptions to GCR sole source: 3.15.1 Justification of Non-competitive Process

.

No, I am, I gave you the link above.........the justification for awarding a sole source contract are as follows:

The need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest

Can't be that, as the other suppliers would be starting from the same mark from production as Boeing.....and furthermore, that precludes leasing used aircraft from another country.

The estimated expenditure does not exceed,

1. $25,000;
2. $100,000 where the contract is for the acquisition of architectural, engineering and other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of the construction, repair, renovation or restoration of a work;
3. $100,000 where the contract is to be entered into by the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency and is for the acquisition of architectural, engineering or other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of an international development assistance program or project; GCRs 6.(

It's not that

the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids

Why wouldn't it be in the public interest to solicit bids for an "interim" purchase, that would be worth billions.......

only one person is capable of performing the contract GCRs 6

We know thats not the case......as there are numerous producers of fighter aircraft.

again, you just said the, "Liberals weren't stupid"... do you think they don't have the exception covered... do you think government lawyers haven't been all over this like the proverbial 'dirty-shirt'?

I do think that, or that this article has little merit and was perhaps leaked as a trial balloon..............they clearly crapped the bed, as I said numerous times last year, when they mentioned the F-35 by name during the election.......and here too, based on them mentioning the Super Hornet by name, here too they are opening themselves up for legal attack...........

I do think they have piss poor lawyers or that lawyers put the kibosh on this sole source purchase for that very reason.......and this is why we have a "leak" from an "unnamed source" and not an official government release

[PIK]

The liberals will not be buying anything, remember when they used the word lean during the election. Lean = gutted.

[Smallc]

The problem with that suggestion, is the legal morass encompassing a sole source bid for an aircraft directly mentioned in Liberal campaign literature

How many of any competitor aircraft can we get this year? How many Typhoons, Rafales, or Super Gripens can we get now? How many fully operational F-35s? It's a simple justification. There is room at the Boeing factory to do this - now.

I think you may have to eat crow again, if this pans out.

[Smallc]

The liberals will not be buying anything, remember when they used the word lean during the election.

Harper beat them to it.

[Derek 2.0]

How many of any competitor aircraft can we get this year? How many Typhoons, Rafales, or Super Gripens can we get now? How many fully operational F-35s? It's a simple justification. There is room at the Boeing factory to do this - now.

There is plenty of room at the Fort Worth plant that builds F-35s and the cheaper F-16s now....to do this.........the Liberals, as mentioned in the article, have yet to square the legal and political circle, which is far more difficult to do with a sole source contract then just not buying the F-35.

[Smallc]

There is plenty of room at the Fort Worth plant that builds F-35s and the cheaper F-16s now

There are no fully operational F-35s or F-16Vs to perform NORAD missions - further, we already rejected the F-16 40 years ago.

....to do this.........the Liberals, as mentioned in the article, have yet to square the legal and political circle, which is far more difficult to do with a sole source contract then just not buying the F-35.

And yet Australia managed it for the same reasons. Imagine that.

[Derek 2.0]

There are no fully operational F-35s or F-16Vs to perform NORAD missions - further, we already rejected the F-16 40 years ago.

Huh? There are no fully operational Super Hornets performing NORAD missions either.......yet the bulk of NORAD missions presently are conducted by USAF and ANG F-16s..........and we rejected the F-16, 40 years ago, because at the time it didn't have a radar capable of guiding the sparrows....which we required for NORAD, and the Hornet was the cheapest aircraft at the time that did......40 years later, the F-16 is the mainstay of NORAD and cheaper than the Super Hornet.

And yet Australia managed it for the same reasons. Imagine that.

When did Aussie defense purchases start having to follow Canadian law and procurement guidelines?

[Smallc]

Huh? There are no fully operational Super Hornets performing NORAD missions either

That's not what I said.

.......yet the bulk of NORAD missions presently are conducted by USAF and ANG F-16s

Not the latest (4.5) generation of F-16 - the Super Viper

When did Aussie defense purchases start having to follow Canadian law and procurement guidelines?

I wonder what body is capable of amending laws?

[waldo]

No, I am, I gave you the link above.........the justification for awarding a sole source contract are as follows:

I do think they have piss poor lawyers or that lawyers put the kibosh on this sole source purchase for that very reason.......and this is why we have a "leak" from an "unnamed source" and not an official government release

it's always good to read an internet lawyer at his/her best - well done! Filling the described gap is significant, particularly given the over-ongoing, ever-continuing, ever-growing F-35 delays and extensions to so-called "production"; notwithstanding actual mega-problems with the F-35. Given the gap and the failed F-35, I would think there grounds on that basis to speak of public-interest and degrees of urgency... balanced against spending say another couple of billion to further extend the Hornets life even more. Alternatively, and somewhat related, aligning with an upgrade path that also speaks to Boeing being in a position to respond at reasonable comparative cost, that sure reads like a manufacturer ready to step right in. If you're going to go all internet lawyer, go all the way - Here try this:

of course, never discount a 'Harper ploy'! You know, set requirements such that no other option (than the Super Hornet) could meet them. Harper tried/true, right?

.

[PIK]

So the liberals are going to buy the super hornet, or is this a ruse to shut everyone up and did they sole source this?? Why are they not looking at European models??

[Smallc]

So the liberals are going to buy the super hornet, or is this a ruse to shut everyone up and did they sole source this?? Why are they not looking at European models??

They haven't bought anything.

[Army Guy]

what legal morass? Super Hornets are just a bridge measure... to manage the gaps! Don't worry, there will still be an open competition to replace the CF-18s... count on it... sometime in the future! Uhhh, you believe that, right?

.

So what you are implying here, is the current rules and regulations don't mean squat if you plans to purchase equipment on an interim basis or to bridge another future purchase.....I looked at all your links, and did not see anything that states what you are saying....what it does say you can proceed if you are purchasing more of the same aircraft, or type...But the CF18 and Super hornet are two very different aircraft, that share only a partial name with old F-18....How do you draw that line to think they could purchase super hornets without some sort of competition....I mean who choose the super hornet anyway, some school kid in the liberal cabinet, or the Air force was thrown a bone, take it or leave it sort of proposal.....

And why NOW....the last upgrade was to have F-18 flying until 2025, so why do we need to act right now....

[waldo]

And why NOW....the last upgrade was to have F-18 flying until 2025, so why do we need to act right now....

Time running out to upgrade Canada’s aging CF-18 jets

.

[?Impact]

I wonder if the bros discussed this during the Washington state visit several weeks back. Something our press should be asking of Mr. Trudeau.

[PIK]

Very good pt . That boy could be talked into anything.

[Army Guy]

Time running out to upgrade Canada’s aging CF-18 jets

.

So your saying time is running out to upgrade current Canadian F-18 fleet, which has to be completed by 2021...to keep aircraft flying to 2025. AT the cost of 500. mil....

Where my confusion lies is this .....The liberals are proposing purchasing an interim aircraft to avoid paying out for upgrades...and buy more time to correctly decide on the F-18 replacement...Is that that the message your conveying.

[waldo]

Very good pt . That boy could be talked into anything.

"boy"... please sir, that is clearly uncalled for, belittling name-calling. Since you feel so emboldened, please rise to the occasion and state why the U.S. President and his admin would presume to favour the Boeing Super Hornet over... another offering. Sure you can!

.

[waldo]

So your saying time is running out to upgrade current Canadian F-18 fleet, which has to be completed by 2021...to keep aircraft flying to 2025. AT the cost of 500. mil....

Where my confusion lies is this .....The liberals are proposing purchasing an interim aircraft to avoid paying out for upgrades...and buy more time to correctly decide on the F-18 replacement...Is that that the message your conveying.

make your own interpretations of what the highly knowledgeable subject matter expert from the Ottawa Citizen is saying. It's an easy read and self-explanatory.

what I am saying is that there is a gap that must be filled... and it can't have the ever-shifting dates associated with the failed F-35 as its reference point. What I am saying... said... is that the "interim measure" designation is a tidy fit to deal with a litigious-minded manufacturer.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow...another military procurement circle jerk in Canada...over a measly $500 million CAD.

No spoiler alerts required...this movie has already been seen many times.

[Army Guy]

under what obligation is Canada required to open up to a competition what is simply an upgrade path from the Hornet to Super-Hornet?

That would depend on the definition of upgrade would it not...and hear I thought upgrade meant taking an existing airframe and improving upon it. Can you use CF-18 and upgrade them to super hornets....I don't think so, and why did the us navy retire it's older F-18's instead of upgrading them to Super hornets, just a question to ponder ? The super Hornet is a totally different aircraft, that happens to share a common name....that's it...which would require at least a competition to find the right aircraft for the job and be subjected to the same rules and regulations.

Same as we did for replacing the Leo tanks.

[Army Guy]

make your own interpretations of what the highly knowledgeable subject matter expert from the Ottawa Citizen is saying. It's an easy read and self-explanatory.

what I am saying is that there is a gap that must be filled... and it can't have the ever-shifting dates associated with the failed F-35 as its reference point. What I am saying... said... is that the "interim measure" designation is a tidy fit to deal with a litigious-minded manufacturer.

.

I have read it and I'm having issues with your sudden change of heart over the procurement rules, what was once bad for the cons is now good for the Libs....And perhaps your concern was not so much over the party, but the Aircraft itself...

I personally like the interim aircraft direction, but it needs to be done right or it turns into the political football nobody wants to touch and the only ones that end up suffering in the end is the troops that use the equipment....

I think the Air force see's the writing on the wall, as long as the liberals are in charge there is no F-35...not in the next 4 years, or in the next 8 if the liberals remain in power....So they are willing to grasp at any straw or life line the government wants to throw at them....Since the article fails to mention any specifics weather it is a good deal or not has yet to be seen....

[Argus]

So what you are implying here, is the current rules and regulations don't mean squat if you plans to purchase equipment on an interim basis or to bridge another future purchase....

Don't you understand by now that sole-sourcing is only bad when Conservatives do it? When Liberals do it it's no biggie, and the same guys who condemned the Conservatives for it will rush to proclaim it a wonderful thing now. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it? It allows any amount of self-delusion among the faithful.