Canadian F/A-18s

[Gordon Shumway]

Something I have always struggled with which was taught during my RMC studies is this, "political parties reflect the will and desire of the populace."

I've always felt a political party reflects the will of a targeted populace.

If political parties do reflect the will of the populace, does the Canadian population not want a strong and effective military? If this is not true, why doesn't our populace go berserk when we are neglected by our government?

Interesting points...

I think Canada's problem may be that the PMO has become too powerful and through it and Cabinet we have become a nation full of mindless bureaucracy, where such is a make works operation out of Ottawa first, but as like a disease spreads to the provinces and even city governments. But too the populous here has a thing about looking for government to have all the answers. Combined with a good bit of Canadian self-righteousness and a bit of an inferiority complex in comparison to our US neighbours (who BTW have a bit of a superiority complex ;)/> ) well we get the types of government we see I guess.

All governments globally seem to love bureaucracy but Canada has shown to be a good poster boy to such and in some ways it seems many Canadians want this as again we seem to tend to look for the various levels of government to have the answers for us, when we should first resource answers for each of ourselves, before quickly and with an entitled veil look to government. Meh I'm not holding my breath for much change. :D/>

Edited June 8, 2016 by Gordon Shumway

[Raceaddict]

At best he said he would reopen the competition process...again. Now, imagine if he and his government actually held a new fighter competition and it was determined (after how many more millions of Canadian tax payers dollars was spent) that the F-35 was indeed the best choice then how would that make Mr.GQ look? Enter the current SH rumor. So instead of doing what should be done (if he has indeed scrapped the work and money already spent by the previous administration) and hold a fair and balanced new fighter acquisition program (again) and running the risk of having the F-35 selected again thus making him look bad he will use up already limited funds towards a stop gap solution in the SH. And he would then look good for the Canadian SH rollout photo shoot

All they have to do is hold "fair and balanced" competition with rules set up ahead of time that will preclude the F-35. They just need the standard "Canadian fighters must have 2 engines to fly over our vast wilderness" fallback and that will be that.... they can buy whatever they want, ignoring the F-35 no matter how great it is.

[Emvar]

From a modeling perspective I'd love to see the SH in RCAF colours.

From a taxpayers perspective I want something that is new and cost effective and will last. This is why F-35 makes sense.

The problem with making promises during an election is you are not privy to information. ... I'm sure this is why they are back stepping on that promise.

You all have to remember they are still a right of center party.... red conservatives.

[Don]

All they have to do is hold "fair and balanced" competition with rules set up ahead of time that will preclude the F-35. They just need the standard "Canadian fighters must have 2 engines to fly over our vast wilderness" fallback and that will be that.... they can buy whatever they want, ignoring the F-35 no matter how great it is.

Yep, stack the deck in his favor to make him look good and the media will fall right into line on cue to help the sales pitch.

Can't you see the photo-op already when the first Canadian SH rolls off the assembly line...the only questions that remain are does "sunny" wear the usual suit or a flight suit (channeling his inner "Maverick") and does he do a hero shot in the cockpit or a more relaxed pose in front of the AC? :lol:

[Raceaddict]

From a modeling perspective I'd love to see the SH in RCAF colours.

From a modelling perspective I want to see RCAF Flankers & Fullbacks! :D

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thanks for the info Don. Yes, the politics of the last election included more of our new combat jet fiasco. But lets be fair. Mr. Harper did approve F-35 but then due the the cost numbers his government said it would be was being politically argued, he backed down. He was not afraid of budget costs on many other issues, why so much on F-35?

Election approaching.

important links. I am not bothering with the European aircraft because its been pretty much a given that the CF-18 replacement will be american:

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/richard-shimooka-the-f-35-is-still-our-best-bet

SH Vs F-35^

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/kpmgi-kpmgb-eng.html

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/cdai_analysis_f35_dec2012.pdf

KPMG report(s)^

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03972.html

Industrial perks^

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

summary of Denmark Decision F-35 over Super Hornet

I don't think there is a country that is more uninformed on the JSF than Canada and that is really saying something. And I don't blame Canadians, I blame a lazy and biased Canadian media. There was a report where someone listed the Super Hornet as 50 million dollars (which is wayyyyy under what Canada would pay) and the F-35 as something like 170 million (which is wayyyyyy over what Canada would pay) lazy journos rather than look into the numbers simply started using them, and one would parrot the other and the lie grew. So eventually there were a dozen sources all quoting the wrong price, and then we wonder why people are so biased to one option and not the other. Even after the KMPG report laid out the exact costs the false numbers persisted. So Canadians are getting terrible information on this aircraft and it has become EXTREMELY politicized, Which means its more about being right than doing right.

Yep, stack the deck in his favor to make him look good and the media will fall right into line on cue to help the sales pitch.

Can't you see the photo-op already when the first Canadian SH rolls off the assembly line...the only questions that remain are does "sunny" wear the usual suit or a flight suit (channeling his inner "Maverick") and does he do a hero shot in the cockpit or a more relaxed pose in front of the AC? :lol:

Please it would clearly be a selfie.

All they have to do is hold "fair and balanced" competition with rules set up ahead of time that will preclude the F-35. They just need the standard "Canadian fighters must have 2 engines to fly over our vast wilderness" fallback and that will be that.... they can buy whatever they want, ignoring the F-35 no matter how great it is.

Luckily its not quite that simple.

The ironic thing is a previous Liberal put us into the F-35 program, they even upped us to Level 2 partners before losing power. The Liberals paid to be in the program and to be part of the R&D. It was the only way we could purchase the equipment, was to be a paying member. Now the Liberal's criticize the end result they formulated.

lets not remember that though.

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-buying-super-hornets-not-f-35s-will-saddle-air-force-with-the-wrong-aircraft-forever

Well look at that

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-f-35s-are-far-from-working-as-liberals-tories-spar-over-fighter-jet-strategies

Oh boy

Edited June 8, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Don]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-f-35s-are-far-from-working-as-liberals-tories-spar-over-fighter-jet-strategies

Oh boy

Honestly, reading that article (more so the quotes from "sunny") and there is no way Canada will be buying the F-35 now that the selfie king has closed that door off. He'd look like a huge buffoon if he did a 180 after what he's been quoted as saying (and we all know how much image means to him). So instead he's in all likelihood going to buy the SH, feed Canadians whatever line he wants about how great a decision it is, the Canadian media will help him sell it, and the masses will take it hook, line, and sinker because "sunny" says so.

It's funny because the articles you (TT) post in the F-35 thread about how other nations who have started taking deliveries and begun operating/training with the F-35 all seem to love the AC and have great things to say about it. Yet you read the Canadian media and especially the comment sections from readers and it's like they are talking about a completely different aircraft. They (the comment posters) have completely bought into the anti-F-35 rant and are thoroughly waving the SH banner. Its actually quite amazing to watch it all unfold...a tad scary too just how disinformation can spread and be taken as the gospel.

Too bad there probably won't be a fair competition open to all aircraft as it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be. But that's too risky politically.

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's funny because the articles you (TT) post in the F-35 thread about how other nations who have started taking deliveries and begun operating/training with the F-35 all seem to love the AC and have great things to say about it. Yet you read the Canadian media and especially the comment sections from readers and it's like they are talking about a completely different aircraft. They (the comment posters) have completely bought into the anti-F-35 rant and are thoroughly waving the SH banner. Its actually quite amazing to watch it all unfold...a tad scary too just how disinformation can spread and be taken as the gospel.

The example that made me crack up the most was a comment that said the F-35 was "compromised by strike Requirements, Canada need to go with the F/A-18E/F" LOL ok

Too bad there probably won't be a fair competition open to all aircraft as it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be. But that's too risky politically.

I want a fair competition!

Ok but F-35 will win.

Nevermind! we need something else right now, I choose!

[TaiidanTomcat]

^{What does Ottawa know about the F-35 that the Danes don’t}

^{Unlike Canada, Denmark’s fighter jet procurement process was democratic and transparent, which makes it difficult to assail}

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.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/08/what-does-ottawa-know-about-the-f-35-that-the-danes-dont.html

[Don]

I honestly think that at this stage the F-35 has become so maligned in Canada by the current PM and an eager Canadian media hungry to perpetuate the misinformation/disinformation surrounding the F-35 that it just seems highly unlikely that the aircraft can ever be purchased without some serious crow eating by many (the PM having to eat the biggest portion). I do not follow the F-35 near as much as many here on ARC do but based on what I see and read the AC is exactly what countries like Canada need for their own defense as well as to meet their international commitments for decades to come. As I have written a few times in this thread, hold the fair and balanced new fighter competition that the PM and his Ministers have mentioned more then a few times during and since the election and see what happens. The sad part is the potential losers in all this will be firstly the RCAF and eventually the Canadian tax payers who are being sold a line by the PM and a willing Canadian media.

[john53]

Not a big F-35 supporter but you have a point and it seems to

mirror what's happening here in the U.S.---John

[RCAFFAN]

Area of Denmark: 42,925 square kilometers (16,573 square miles)

Area of Canada: 9.985 million square kilometers (3.855 million square miles)

Don't know what we should buy but it sure as hell should have 2 engines if we want them to actually have a chance to get back to a base if a engine fails.......

Just saying....

Edited June 9, 2016 by RCAFFAN

[11bee]

Area of Denmark: 42,925 square kilometers (16,573 square miles)

Area of Canada: 9.985 million square kilometers (3.855 million square miles)

Don't know what we should buy but it sure as hell should have 2 engines if we want them to actually have a chance to get back to a base.......

Just saying....

Statistically, the loss rate due to engine failure for current single engine jets doesn't seem to be any different than the loss rate for twin engine jets. I'm pretty confident the F-35 will meet or exceed the safety rate of today's single engine jets

The USN and Marines plan on flying these aircraft over wide expanses of ocean, yet I don't believe either organization feels that they are putting their pilots at undue risk.

This isn't 1955 when tactical jets were falling out of the sky every day due to engine failure. I'd rest easy on this issue.

[Don]

The USN and Marines plan on flying these aircraft over wide expanses of ocean, yet I don't believe either organization feels that they are putting their pilots at undue risk.

This isn't 1955 when tactical jets were falling out of the sky every day due to engine failure. I'd rest easy on this issue.

^^^A perfect example of what you won't read in a Canadian newspaper or hear on the TV news.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Area of Denmark: 42,925 square kilometers (16,573 square miles)

Area of Canada: 9.985 million square kilometers (3.855 million square miles)

Don't know what we should buy but it sure as hell should have 2 engines if we want them to actually have a chance to get back to a base if a engine fails.......

Just saying....

Please include the US and the area of the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans along with the fact that F-35s will be operating in Alaska as well.

The swedes and Norwegians routinely operate singles over the Arctic and water as well.

The single versus double argument invariably comes to the Quality, not Quantity of the engines. Gripen has one and has a great safety record. F-16s with the latest Pratts are ridiculously safe. Contrast this with the twin TF30 engine Tomcat which had a horrific accident rate.

It's not that the engine fails, it's how it fails. Thay famous picture of the CF-18 crashing with the pilot ejecting in frame was an engine failure.

We also have the F-18 that had a dual engine failure and hit a house.

Statistically they are about even in terms of losses. What's more is that if the twins are suffering failures, and limping home that might be an indicator that they are failing more often along with still suffering the same loss rate...

Canada signed onto the JSF in 1997, it's always been a single engine, it's not like that changed somewhere and Canada never got the word. If two engines was a deal breaker they clearly should have never signed on back in the late 1990s.

There is actual a ton of literature about twin vs single, but people don't actual read it:

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/f-35-flight-safety-examining-the-one-dead-pilot-report

Same thing with the aerial refueling "controversy"

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

Again you will not see this stuff on Main stream Canadian media, because then the people would be informed, and they would have to contradict their own narratives.

Edited June 9, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[phantom]

Refuelling is the only "real" advantage I can see with the Super Hornet. As we all ready have the airframes to refuel the probe and drogue. With the F-35 (unless they somehow make the A model compatible) we would need a new fleet (of 2) refuelling airframes.

This of course excepts the advantage of not making our "Vogue" model PM look stupid ala Chreitian and the Sea King.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Refuelling is the only "real" advantage I can see with the Super Hornet. As we all ready have the airframes to refuel the probe and drogue. With the F-35 (unless they somehow make the A model compatible) we would need a new fleet (of 2) refuelling airframes.

This of course excepts the advantage of not making our "Vogue" model PM look stupid ala Chreitian and the Sea King.

The refueling tankers aren't supposed to go past 2025, and the US is doing a lot of the tanking up north as it is, which requires USAF tankers to put the hose and drogue kit on.

This is again where that interoperability really comes into play. F-35 is going to be collecting and sharing data at a rate the super bugs can't match. Using different aircraft with different refueling methods when there is chance to correct that... NORAD in the north is generally a USAF affair as opposed to USN. So even if the goal is NORAD/defense F-35 is better. Plus the USAF is talking about F-35 until 2070. In 20 years the super bug Is going to be out of service and obsolete

[mingwin]

just because it will piss off "the so-called experts" here, i nearly wish Canada choose Super Hornet. ...(mostly only experts in copy+past/propaganda... or experts in Meme...)

just because we can write about F-18 replacement without being political... and that every time anyone here wrote "how they hated liberals" and how Trudeau the 2nd will screw everything... (I hated his father...and still, decades after his death (like most people from Québec province) and didn't voted for his son either! )

still, we manage to survive all of the liberals military errors with less international damages than in the last decade. (i did even stop my military career because of 1990's political climate in Canadian Forces)

Canada's just getting out of it's worst political era, thanks to all those great Canadians that voted for anything but the reformists.

modelling wise, a Super Hornet is way more interesting than that ugly-boring F-35.

maybe, if the F-35 wasn't a US made aircraft it would get more consideration...and this might be even truer if the WigMoron is elected at presidency...

Edited June 10, 2016 by mingwin

[mingwin]

double post, sorry.

Edited June 10, 2016 by mingwin

[Scooby]

just because it will piss off "the so-called experts" here, i nearly wish Canada choose Super Hornet. ...(mostly only experts in copy+past/propaganda... or experts in Meme...)

just because we can write about F-18 replacement without being political... and that every time anyone here wrote "how they hated liberals" and how Trudeau the 2nd will screw everything... (I hated his father...and still, decades after his death (like most people from Québec province) and didn't voted for his son either! )

still, we manage to survive all of the liberals military errors with less international damages than in the last decade. (i did even stop my military career because of 1990's political climate in Canadian Forces)

Canada's just getting out of it's worst political era, thanks to all those great Canadians that voted for anything but the reformists.

modelling wise, a Super Hornet is way more interesting than that ugly-boring F-35.

maybe, if the F-35 wasn't a US made aircraft it would get more consideration...and this might be even truer if the WigMoron is elected at presidency...

So called experts? I think there are some really well educated people in this thread who understand the F-35 program well. There have been great discussions in this thread.

The Super Hornet supporters say it would be Super Cool to see a Super Hornet in Canadian markings. But they don't support it in much more than that. By the way, when I toured the Super Hornet plant in St.Louis, I zapped a Super Hornet on the line with a Canadian roundel.

Your lack of understanding of the F-35 is apparent, stating if it wasn't a US built aircraft it would get more consideration. The ironic thing of that statement is a lot of Canadian companies build the F-35\s components. The Super Hornet is 99% US made. There are some parts made in Winnipeg.

The Liberals put us into the F-35 program, they upped us to Level II members. The entire reason we were in the program was to be involved in the R&D, involved in the production, and to be purchasing partners. So the end result of the Liberals putting that into that program was to purchase the jet we were involved with designing.

As pointed out in this thread, the media has done a poor job of accurately reporting. I'm even sure what they do report. They are more tabloid than anything nowadays.

You don't make a military purchase for today's wars, you buy it for future wars. You buy the equipment that will most likely bring your people home.

I know one of the F-35s tests pilots (an ex-CAF pilot), I know a former member of Parliament who flew CF-18s (and I served under him), who are all very supportive of the F-35 purchase.

Canada is not getting out of the worst political era ever, we just left one of the finest. PET was the worst, we lost our credit rating under PET and our debt soared (sound familiar).

[Alvis 3.1]

Something that has had me puzzled the last day or so is what will the designated CF number for the Super Hornets be? CF-188701 to 188798 was allocated for the F-18As, and CF-188901 to 188940 were used for the F-18Bs. This frees up CF-1888XX series. Would the aircraft be designated as CF-188E/Fs, or is there a possibility they may go to CF-189?

All this is assuming I have the correct info on serial number ranges currently in use or available.

Alvis 3.1

[phantom]

I would guess 189XXX.

[TaiidanTomcat]

just because it will piss off "the so-called experts" here, i nearly wish Canada choose Super Hornet. ...(mostly only experts in copy+past/propaganda... or experts in Meme...)

In this case the "so called experts" are linking and providing proof to actual experts. Most recently the Danes, who rejected the Super Hornet and picked the F-35. The F-35 is undefeated in competition and has once again defeated the Super Hornet. And the Danes were even nice enough to release their findings for the world to see. The short conclusion is that the super Hornet cost more, would not work as long, and was inferior. This before we get into many Canadians who are involved with the F-35 who would be considered "Experts" that favor the F-35. Every study or evaluation the RCAF or DnD has ever conducted has found the F-35 to be the winner. Which is why we are seeing an attempt at getting super hornets with no studies, evaluations or competition.

Conversely, we have never seen a super hornet win a single competition. The Navy said it was a Hornet variant, so there was no need for competitive fly off like the LWF comp, battle of the X-planes, or YF-23/YF-22. It was sole sourced by Australia as an F-111 stop gap. Every competition SH's participate in, they lose. In India, Brazil, and lost directly to the F-35 in Japan and Denmark not even a month ago.

If you want to debate rather than insult, bring some facts and lets go. I've provided plenty of sources to back my claims including official Canadian documents, and Canadian analysis.

modelling wise, a Super Hornet is way more interesting than that ugly-boring F-35.

You can build a Super Hornet in RCAF markings right now, people already have.

maybe, if the F-35 wasn't a US made aircraft it would get more consideration...

More consideration? wut? Isn't the Super Hornet made in the US? Hasn't Canada been involved in JSF non stop since 1997?

The Danish report provides an inconvenient critique of the potential Liberal decision to undertake the procurement of the Super Hornet. First it undermines the contention that the F/A-18E/F represents a low cost option for Canada. The original Liberal announcement to exclude the F-35 a potential competition was largely based on the belief that the Super Hornet or other options could be procured at nearly a third of the overall cost of the F-35. This utilized an erroneous cost analysis that applied out of date data of an aircraft without any key equipment, and left out mandatory fees and charges levied by the US government on foreign procurements. The Danish report clearly shows the F-35 is the lowest cost to both procure and operate, with a total lifecycle cost of only 70% that of the F/A-18E. This was a function of the F-35’s lower production cost, more efficient logistics and training system, and longer airframe lifespan. The F-35’s lower procurement cost was recently highlighted in a statement by the JSF project executive officer, General Bogdan, who emphasized his belief that the F-35s purchase cost drop to between 80~85 million dollars by 2019.2

In sum: Denmark found they required 38 Super Hornets to accomplish the same role as 28 F-35s over the same period, with the former’s fleet costing more to operate and being less capable. Although Boeing has questioned some of the analysis, subsequent clarifications by the Danish government, have made evident the process was done with thoroughness and integrity.3

Perhaps the most comprehensive area of the Danish evaluation was the capability assessment. It involved a broader examination of the international environment, Danish foreign and defence policy and how they related to Royal Danish Air Force’s future operations. A key feature of this section was a detailed analysis of their core allies’ military intentions (including Canada), which emphasized Denmark’s strong commitment to multilateral bodies, specifically the UN and NATO.

These highlighted missions were then further distilled down to six operational scenarios, in which the various fighter options were evaluated. The report found that in all but one category (where all the candidates tied) the F-35 was superior to the Super Hornet and Eurofighter. The latter two options were shown to be deficient in their ability to manage the increasingly complex threat environment of the future. Members of the RCAF’s CF-18 community have become aware of the potential lethality of these threats during their recent operations over Syria and Eastern Europe, where they encountered new Russian air defence systems.

The Danish report does not – obviously – have data that would be helpful to address the primary Canadian government justification for a potential Super Hornet purchase; preventing an apparent gap in capabilities due to the retirement of the CF-18 fleet. Leaving aside questions as to whether such a replacement is imminently required, the potential remedy itself is dubious. It is important to note that an interim buy would commit Canada to either a much reduced fighter force (as Super Hornets will be out of production in the next few years), or a mixed fleet with F-35s. This is a poor outcome, as the 2014 National Fighter Procurement Secretariat report opined; “a mixed fleet would provide less capability at a higher cost.”4

Canada’s approach to the F-35 has no relevant parallel among any other state. Australia’s initial purchase of Super Hornets occurred nine years ago to address the impending retirement of the F-111C, not their 71 F/A-18As (a contemporary Canada’s CF-18s with similar fatigue life issues). Their Hornets will be replaced by F-35s, with the first squadron of planes delivered in 2019 and the fleet declared operational in 2020. Canada could easily follow Australia’s lead and have an orderly transition to a F-35 fleet as fast as they could with the F/A-18E Super Hornet, at a lower cost and greater capability.

The Liberal government has repeatedly stressed that it will avoid playing politics with defence issues. However, the sole source selection of the F/A-18E/F, in any capacity, is simply a blatant form of political interference. While the Conservative government also attempted a sole-source selection of the F-35, they did so upon the recommendation of the military and bureaucracy. It is questionable whether that occurred here, as there is no military, economic or financial benefit for an interim purchase of the Super Hornet over the F-35. The only reason evident for the proposed purchase is to fulfill a questionable political campaign promise that was based on shoddy analysis.

And perhaps this is the greatest disappointment of the Liberal Government’s apparent decision. It entered into power with the promise to be better stewards of the public interest by practicing transparency and evidence based policymaking.5 Denmark has followed this path, resulting in a transparent process that has given credibility to its likely final selection of the F-35. Instead, the Liberal government seems intent in taking the opposite path, disregarding expert analysis and data from Government of Canada sources, as well as foreign reports like the Danish evaluation. It made an evaluation without a proper, credible procurement process, diminishing our international credibility and potentially saddling Canada with an inferior, higher cost aircraft – one that will leave the state and Canadian Armed Forces personnel exposed to greater threats in the future. This should not be allowed to pass.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/liberal-governments-fighter-jet-replacement-process-flawed-analyst-argues

“Not selecting the F-35 will set off a chain of events that will see hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost, and high-tech jobs leaving Canada,” the Canadian JSF Industrial Group said Thursday. “It is doubtful that any other procurement would provide the same industrial benefits.”

However, the Liberal government and Boeing Co., the company that makes the Super Hornet, have pushed back, saying not buying the F-35 won’t be the end of the world — or the end of Canada’s aerospace industry.

AP Photo/U.S. Air Force

AP Photo/U.S. Air ForceA formation of U.S. Navy F-18E Super Hornets.

“New skills and technologies gained through access to the (F-35) program have helped position Canadian industry to take advantage of other advanced aerospace and defence projects,” said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

“While we appreciate the CJIG’s concerns,” she said, “the government of Canada makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our Canadian Armed Forces.”

The back-and-forth over potential jobs losses represents the latest front in the battle for a new fighter jet after Postmedia reported the Liberals are looking to buy Super Hornets without a competition.

In a sharply worded statement, CJIG noted the federal government has invested $100 million to help Canadian companies successfully compete for more than $700 million in contracts associated with the F-35. But they said winning more work is contingent on buying the plane.

The government says it needs to buy a new plane quickly, and while the Liberals say no decision has been made, it is believed they will purchase a small number of Super Hornets on an “interim” basis. That would allow the government to avoid a competition thanks to a change to federal procurement laws introduced by the previous Conservative government.

The industrial group predicted that if such a purchase goes through, the whole CF-18 fighter fleet will be eventually replaced by the same aircraft as it would almost certainly be too expensive for the Canadian military to operate more than one type of plane.

It noted the U.S. and other countries, including Denmark, are planning to buy more than 2,000 F-35s. The Danish Parliament voted Thursday to buy 27 of the stealth fighter. If Canada doesn’t purchase the plane, the industrial group said, it would mean missing out on a huge global supply chain for the next 40 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/gloves-off-as-canadian-aerospace-firms-slam-liberals-for-favouring-super-hornets-over-f-35s