http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/06/07/canad ... ow-report/
For now? At least we're finally moving in the right direction. F-35 has been an absolute embarrassment for anyone involved.
My question has always been on any military procurement deal, why does the government, of any nation, not say to whatever branch of it is, here is your budget, buy what you need? Kind of like giving a kid money for their birthday instead of a present. More time and money is wasted by laymen deciding what professionals should have and not what they may actually need.
Skipper: What makes you think that?
Kowalski: We've lost engine one, and engine two is no longer on fire.
That's exactly how it happened with the F35 procurement (from my, admittedly, non-insider perspective). The problem with that approach is that defence companies have a very long marketing horizon. They'll hook you with various tactics (ie: technology partnerships, overselling what the product can actually do, wining and dining decision makers, and, in worst cases, bribes), and then, before you know it, your RFP fits only one thing that's around - which may not even be the best option for what you actually need it to do.Darkwing Duck wrote:My question has always been on any military procurement deal, why does the government, of any nation, not say to whatever branch of it is, here is your budget, buy what you need?
Now, there's a different discussion to be had about large government purchases and how (in)efficient they usually are (and this isn't a Canadian-exclusive thing, it happens all over the world), but I'm personally of the opinion that a country's defence needs shouldn't be decided by who buys the generals the most dinners. Which is why there's usually some sort of a checks-and-balances system in proper competitive bids. (Much ink and electricity has been spilled writing about Canadian political elites playing football with defence procurement, I don't particularly want to add (much) more to it)
Eurofighter, perhaps, or Mirage might work.
Boeing likely would cut a deal to get their Hornet's into our hands. Buy and rejuvenate some old F-15Es.
There are too many good, and proven airframes, that match and exceed our current (and very likely future) mission profile to focus on such a pathetic, and costly one from Lockheed.
Oh really? That's interesting as all Mirages are single engine.schnitzel2k3 wrote: Mirage might work.
Details on your opinion. What is our future mission profile? What are our future threats? Match missions and threats to specific airframes please.schnitzel2k3 wrote: There are too many good, and proven airframes, that match and exceed our current (and very likely future) mission profile to focus on such a pathetic, and costly one from Lockheed.
We need that plane to replace our current planes. I have no idea what mission capabilities are, but they look and sound cool!
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
I have no problem disqualifying the F-35 for a number of reasons, but sole-sourcing it is just as wrong with Trudeau as it was with Harper. We need a proper selection process to determine what the country's needs are, not the government's.
Yes but Putin and us don't get along that great.PropToFeather wrote:Fish4life, if only there was another country that has vast expanses of uninhabited, mostly inhospitable land with sparse availability of airfields, that builds modern planes designed to work in that environment...
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3463
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
He probably meant Dassault, since most of their previous fighters were called Mirage, the model name became confused with the Brand.....AuxBatOn wrote:
Oh really? That's interesting as all Mirages are single engine.
Not all mirages were single engine
Open competition for sure but is the Canadian Government of any stripe really going to spend millions on a European fighter as good as they are. It will be a first, then again I have no knowledge of fighter ops.......
The SH is nearing the last of its production run. Literally, we will be getting the last marks off the line.
The F35 is now starting to fly with numbers in the USAF. There has been at least 1 fighter wing stood up at Hill AFB. Admittedly, these have early computer loads, but they are quickly progressing to formally being combat certified.
The SH flies nicely without weapons hanging off the wings, ie; at the Abbotsford airshow, but hang stores underneath and it quickly becomes a dog. It has short legs, which has caused endless consternation for the USN, as their CVN's are risked nearer to shore......
If one really researches the two planes, the growth and future lies with the F35
You could be right as far as the United States is concerned because that program is one of the "too big to fail" disasters and they're stuck with it. However your list of shortcomings for the SH pales in comparison to the F-35 failures. It is also completely unsuited for use in Canada, promises (while not delivering) technology unnecessary for Canada - and Canada cannot afford it.tailgunner wrote:If one really researches the two planes, the growth and future lies with the F35
Short comings of a proven design that is no longer going to be improved VS the short comings of an aircraft still in development with decades of R and D left to go.Rockie wrote:You could be right as far as the United States is concerned because that program is one of the "too big to fail" disasters and they're stuck with it. However your list of shortcomings for the SH pales in comparison to the F-35 failures. It is also completely unsuited for use in Canada, promises (while not delivering) technology unnecessary for Canada - and Canada cannot afford it.tailgunner wrote:If one really researches the two planes, the growth and future lies with the F35
Can the Super Hornet be upgraded with the F-35's avionics?
F35 avionics are all integrated, you can't just swap out box for box.teacher wrote:
Can the Super Hornet be upgraded with the F-35's avionics?
This decision is purely political and has nothing to do with capability or what the Air Force needs. Can't wait to see those "50 million" dollar super hornets the Canadian media was telling us all about.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comment ... -dont.html
Canadian governments of different political stripes have spent more than a decade trying to figure out whether to buy new fighter jets and which one to buy.
The Conservatives developed an aversion to military-procurement commitments, deferring some, bungling others; Liberals, by contrast are in the habit of politicizing military procurement decisions.
First they make an election plank out of scuttling the F-35 sole-source fighter purchase, now we learn that they are looking at sole-sourcing the F-18. Instead of politicking, which jet Canada buys and how many is secondary to having a proper process that generates and legitimates a commitment on which to follow through.
Recently, the Danish government concluded the F-35 is cheaper, more efficient, and more effective than the alternatives and recommended the F-35 over the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its aging F-16 fleet. Contrary to the approach taken by Conservatives or Liberals in Canada, the Danish options analysis was transparent, public, and its findings were validated independently. There are important lessons for Canada here on both substance and method.
The Danish government considered four criteria: military performance, acquisition and life-cycle costs, industrial benefits, and strategic considerations — primarily the “ability … to support or fulfil Danish defence and security policy objectives, including potential co-operation with other countries.”
They evaluated each category separately and concluded the F-35 trumps the F/A-18 and the Typhoon in all four categories.
Given the F-35’s reputation, the conclusion about costs was most surprising — and key to the budget-conscious Danes. The detailed analysis provided to the parliament and public found that life cycle costs were driven by the number of expected flight hours of each aircraft: 8,000 for the F-35 and 6,000 for the F/A-18 and Typhoon. Since they last longer, the Danes concluded they could meet their defence needs over 30 years with fewer F-35s.
Critics have questioned the data used by the Danish Ministry of Defence. But the information was supplied by the companies themselves as part of the bidding process. Eurofighter explained they were very conservative in their estimate then, but have since calculated the Typhoon could fly for 8,300 hours. Boeing made a similar case: that the actual flight hours for each F/A-18 Super Hornet is 9,500.
The Danes have stood by their process, using data the manufacturers submitted, which they verified and was validated independently by external auditors. It is now up to the Parliament to consider the government’s recommendation.
There are two lessons here for Canada. First, reach a cross-party consensus in principle. In the Danish case, the political parties agreed in 2012, as a matter of principle, that a new combat aircraft purchase will take place, even with a minority government now in power.
Second, Parliament’s external validation can challenge but should not substitute new metrics for those used by the government. In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Auditor General, and KPMG all used different metrics, including different life cycle lengths: whether you calculate jet fuel over 20 or 40 years makes quite the difference!
The Danish process included external validation by RAND Europe and Deloitte Consulting — whose joint report is also publicly available — as well as independent, outside experts. Barring illegality or incompetence on the part of the New Fighter Program Office, the Ministry of Defence, RAND Europe, and Deloitte, it is difficult to see how Boeing or Eurofighter can convince the Danish parliament to forego the government’s recommendations.
The Danish process is democratic and transparent, which makes it difficult to assail. It demonstrates democratic representatives can agree if the processes in place have integrity.
But process does not determine outcome: Canada might well conclude an aircraft other than the F-35 best meets its defence needs. That the largest military purchase in Danish history is proceeding so quickly and with little controversy puts Canadian military procurement processes to shame.
If the Canadian government is serious about the Defence Policy Review it has initiated, learning from Danish technocrats how to procure it may be a good place to start.
While the Danish process is to be admired and emulated, don't assume because they're getting it we should. There are many reasons why we shouldn't. Here are some:frosti wrote:The Danes have figure it out. Correctly.
http://country-facts.findthedata.com/co ... vs-Denmark