Maverick

OTTAWA — Federal officials are expected to sit down with representatives from different fighter jet makers in Paris next week, as uncertainty swirls over the Trudeau government's plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets. The meetings on the sidelines of the prestigious Paris Air Show are being billed as the first step towards the eventual launch of a competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet with 88 new fighters. That is how many warplanes the Liberals' new defence policy calls for Canada to buy, an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. The policy estimates the cost at between $15 billion and $19 billion, up from the $9 billion previously budgeted by the Tories. But while much of the attention will be on the competition, which the government says it will launch in 2019, the companies are also expected to pitch their own ability to sell Canada "interim" jets if needed. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Monday said the government was still reviewing its decision to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace firm Boeing. The Liberals previously said they needed the Super Hornets to address a critical shortage of fighter jets, referred to as a "capability gap," until the full competition to replace the CF-18s could be run. The government said at the time that the Super Hornet was the only aircraft that met its immediate requirements, including being compatible with U.S. fighters and not in development. But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier, sparking a trade dispute and threats from the Liberals to kill the Super Hornet deal. The plan to purchase an interim fighter jet has been unpopular with retired military officers and defence officials as well as analysts, who have instead called for the competition to start now rather than in 2019. A survey of 75 such experts conducted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and released on Tuesday found that the vast majority didn't believe there was a capability gap, and opposed the plan to buy interim jets. But a senior government official told The Canadian Press that the Liberals have no intention of backing away from their plan to buy an interim fighter — even if it means going with a different jet. Sources say the government has not actually approached any of Boeing's competitors about stepping into the breach if the Liberals decide to scrap the Super Hornet deal. But the Paris meetings offer an opportunity for U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, French firm Dassault, Swedish company Saab, and European consortium Eurofighter to make their best pitches on the issue. Each has indicated that it is prepared to provide interim fighter jets upon request. The government's delegation will be led by Maj.-Gen. Alain Pelletier, head of National Defence's fighter program, and Lisa Campbell, who oversees military procurement at the federal procurement department. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/06/13/feds-set-to-meet-with-fighter-jet-firms-amid-super-hornet-questions-3/#.WUBVGNy1uM- While sources say meetings with Boeing's competitors have been set up, it wasn't immediately clear whether the delegation would sit down with the Super Hornet manufacturer as well. That is despite Boeing's plan to enter the Super Hornet in the full competition to replace the CF-18s. Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email that details of the delegation, including its schedule for the Paris Air Show, were still being finalized. "Canada is committed to fair and transparent procurement processes," Bujold added. "Supplier engagement and industry feedback are important elements of PSPC's work." The Liberals have cut off most contact with Boeing since the government threatened to cancel the planned Super Hornet purchase over of the company's spat with Bombardier last month. Boeing spokesman Scott Day said in a statement that the company continues to work closely with the U.S. Navy, through which any sale of interim Super Hornets to Canada would actually be arranged. The government also recently paid another $30 million to remain at the table as a partner in the development of the F-35, and largely backed off its promise never to buy that stealth fighter. Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has announced that the government will add $62 billion in defence spending delays over the next 10 years. The new procurement strategy titled ‘Postponed. Deferred. Delayed.’ seeks spend 70% more money on delays over the next decade to modernize the military’s setbacks. “If we want to be a significant global security player, we have to get serious about bogging down our equipment acquisition process,” the Defence Minister explained at an announcement. Tens of billions have been dedicated to 15 hypothetical surface vessels for the navy so that shipyards in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and BC may produce technologically advanced excuses on why the ships are not ready yet and why it will cost more. “We have allotted $15 billion for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin for state-of-the-art, frivolous lawsuits against our government when we select a competitor’s bid for a new fighter jet,” added Sajjan. This does not include bonus delays such as Canadian premiers complaining on how their province’s industries were left out in military contracts. “We have carefully planned for the Parliamentary Budget Office to release a report on how we underestimated the Operations and Maintenance costs moments before announcing a successful bid.” According to sources inside the Department of National Defence, the Sea King’s phase-out was pushed back to 2065. TAGS: CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, DEFENCE PROCUREMENT, DEFENCE STRATEGY, HARJIT SAJJAN https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/06/ottawa-announces-62-billion-worth-defence-spending-delays/

Are Australians being misled over the real cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter A Joint Strike Fighter lands during the Avalon Airshow in March. Pic: Getty Images ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN Business columnist Melbourne @BGottliebsen One of the world top independent defence experts has conduced an incredibly exhaustive examination of the real cost of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) to those countries that are buying it. The expert, Paris-based Giovanni de Briganti, of Defence-Aerospace, estimates that the average unit cost of Lockheed Martin JSF in the ninth low-rate initial production run is $US206.3 million. The Australian parliament has been told by Defence Minister Marise Payne and Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne that the cost of our Joint Strike Fighters will be in the vicinity of $US90 million. Such a huge variation means that either Giovanni de Briganti has completely got his calculations wrong when applied to Australia, or Pyne and Payne may have misled parliament. I do not have the ability to decide which of the alternatives are correct but there is a good chance that the Pyne/Payne $90 million vicinity estimate leaves out essential costs. F-35 fighter deal doesn’t fly Giovanni de Briganti believes the aircraft’s engine is one of the costs they leave out. Let me explain what I think has happened. Defence officials for over a decade have been hoodwinking politicians on both sides by conveniently leaving out the massive expenditures required to get the JSF aircraft into service. At least in the past that has included leaving out the cost of the engine. De Briganti believes the low cost estimate covers only a partially-completed aircraft about to leave the factory and not one that is ready for action, which is the only true cost. Pyne and Payne may have fallen into the trap. The parliament needs to get to the bottom in the real cost of the JSF. De Briganti emphasises that his $US206.3 million cost includes “engines, fixes and upgrades” — as any proper cost calculation would include. A series of US defence officials have claimed that the cost of the JSF has been reduced thanks to the intervention of President Donald Trump. De Briganti disputes whether there has been a significant fall, so Trump may also have been hoodwinked. The Joint Strike Fighter. There are three different JSF aircraft, which each have slightly different cost structures. De Briganti calculates a “generic” F-35, which a notional aircraft used to compare unit costs from year to year. It is calculated on the basis of the average cost of one aircraft in each of the three versions (F-35A, F-35B and F-35C) in the same production lot. He says that a direct comparison of the aircraft costs released by the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) shows that the cost of a “generic” F-35 has actually increased by $US7.63 million over the five years, 2012 to 2017. According to de Briganti, JPO’s figures show that, of the three variants, only the F-35A saw its cost decline — a modest $3 million over those five years. Australia is buying the F-35A so at least the claim that we have had a cost reduction may be justifiable. However de Briganti is adamant that the official Joint Strike Fighter costs produced by JPO only compare airframe costs, and for reasons it has not explained exclude engine and other costs. If de Briganti is right then clearly the Australian parliament has been quoted costs for the JSF without the engine. If he is right, words fail me. De Briganti says his detailed analysis and indeed the JPO’s own figures contradict many public statements by Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office claiming that unit costs are dropping with each successive production lot. In December, JPO Director Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan claimed that by the time the plane enters full rate production in 2019 the price will be down to $US80-$US85 million for an F-35A, $US110 million for a F-35B, and $US96 million for an F-35C. These figures are the ones Pyne and Payne use. Unfortunately, according to de Briganti, “Lot 9” aircraft being delivered today actually cost $US206 million, on average, including their engines, fixes, retrofits and upgrades, Not (repeat NOT) anything like $US85 million. Furthermore, de Briganti says the JPO continues to award contracts for “Lot 9”, so it is likely the unit cost of “Lot 9” aircraft will continue to grow. Pyne and Payne might say we are parroting what the Americans tell us. That’s not good enough. Our parliament and the public deserves the full facts. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/are-australians-being-miseled-over-the-real-cost-of-the-f35-joint-strike-fighter/news-story/84959f679258706536efcfcb25439614

This might be another "Too big to fail" program. It won't be the end of them but it would certainly hurt. I'm hoping that junior just might step out and do what he said they'd do. Kill the F-35 and get a fighter we need.

The elephant in the room is the fact that Canada has wildly different requirements for this/these aircraft. We need an aircraft that can patrol the north and also do Air-to-ground missions. It needs two engines for long range patrols, anyone in our industry knows this. What should happen is a split order. In my view it's the Eurofighter or Rafale' for long range patol and the Saab Gripen for Lower latitude air defence and air to ground. The Super Hornet is a program on life support. The F-35 doesn't really do anything well and does not have drogue refueling capability. It's a mess but there are I believe Tranche 1 Eurofighters available and the French could provide new Rafale's within 2 years. The Gripen E/F NG is in flight test... Big decision.

This is the only one I can find at the moment, I follow this fairly closely. My personal belief is that Rafale' is the best choice. The SH, if we do get it will be the last of the production run and Boeing will have no great interest in continual upgrades. Dassault is hungry for a "blue-chip" customer like Canada and while it's expensive we would control all aspects of its life. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234

Well, considering that Dassault has offered 100% technology transfer and building pf Rafale' in Canada I think the decision is getting easier.

A little more in-depth look at the super hornet. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+National/Canada/ID/2339344612/

Defense: Pilots who arrived a year ago to train on the fighter of the future are still waiting as safety concerns, cost overruns and questions about the whole program's feasibility mount. The F-35 is meant to be America's next-generation fighter, the heir to the Air Force's F-15 Eagle and the Navy's and Marines' F/A-18 Hornet. Those two aircraft have fulfilled their air superiority and ground-attack roles well, yet many are well beyond their expected life expectancy. The F-35 would fill America's defense needs in an age of budget constraints, we were told. So far it has not been a smooth takeoff. About 35 of the best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy who arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are still waiting. They've been limited to occasionally taxying them and firing up the engines. Otherwise, their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of pilots get to fly the F-35s. Concerns have arisen, ranging from improperly installed parachutes under the pilots' ejector seats to whether the aircraft have been adequately tested. Production has been slow and delayed, and the cost has risen from $233 billion to $385 billion. Only 43 F-35s have been built, and an additional 2,443 have been ordered by the Pentagon. Part of the problem is that the F-35 is a one-size-fits-all aircraft designed to fit roles from taking off a carrier's deck to hovering and landing in a confined space on a foreign battlefield. It's meant to be a ground-attack and air-superiority fighter. The question is whether it can adequately be both. As we learned in past conflicts, relying on one-size-fits-all aircraft can be perilous. Our reliance on the carrier-based F-4 Phantom during Vietnam is a case in point. An aircraft designed to hunt down Soviet bombers during the Cold War, it carried missiles but no guns and was ill-suited for dogfights against MiG fighters designed for a single role — that of air superiority. That was the role originally designated for the F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter designed to simply sweep the skies of enemy jets and let other aircraft do their thing. Production was stopped at only 187 planes, with the excuse given that we couldn't afford multiple aircraft for different roles. So the F-35 was designated as our flying jack-of-all-trades. We've seen these one-size-fits-all and on-the-cheap procurement policies before. The 1960s saw the development of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental), later the F-111, which was to fill all requirements from being a land-based fighter-bomber to a carrier-based aircraft. It wound up too heavy to be a carrier jet and not fast or agile enough to be in a dogfight. Other aircraft had to be procured to fill those needs. F-35 supporters such as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates have acted as if the two planes are interchangeable. They are not. The Raptor is designed as an air superiority fighter; the F-35 was originally designed for ground attack. It does not have a Mach 1.5 supercruise capability or high-altitude vectored thrust for enhanced high-altitude maneuvering. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., in whose state final assembly occurs, says "the F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time against peers with counterelectronic measures." We've put all our chips on a fighter chosen seemingly on financial, and not military, needs. Just as the government picked the wrong car with the Chevy Volt, it may have picked the wrong fighter with the F-35. On the highway, trying to pick winners can be merely unfortunate, but on the battlefield it can be deadly. http://news.investor...=OutBrainCP&p=2

That is something that is worthwhile. I would make it $5/bag. $4.98 goes to tax for the feds. $.01 for the manufacture and $.01 for the vendor. How long would it take before they were no longer available? Plastic is the scourge of this planet. There's nothing that p!sses me off more than trolling for a 30 lb Chinook and catching a plastic bag. It's happened to me. Not that one bag is a big deal but how many bags have to be drifting in the sea 2 miles from shore that I catch one?

That is something that is worthwhile. I would make it $5/bag. $4.98 goes to tax for the feds. $.01 for the manufacture and $.01 for the vendor. How long would it take before they were no longer available? Plastic is the scourge of this planet. There's nothing that p!sses me off more than trolling for a 30 lb Chinook and catching a plastic bag. It's happened to me. Not that one bag is a big deal but how many bags have to be drifting in the sea 2 miles from shore that I catch one?

And that my friend is why the more serious messages get railroaded. I realize that yours is tongue-in-cheek but that's the attitude that the good reverend Suzuki has taken and I, for one have stopped listening to ANYTHING he says. I (like most people I suppose) truly despise being talked down to. It doesn't change the problem or potential problem but it is entirely unhelpful in the big scheme of things.