The F-35

[conehead]

Hmmm... not enough structural support at the wing-fold joint. The "fix" is going to add some weight.

[DEFCON]

I thought protrudences like external missile and bomb racks were anything but stealthy?

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by DEFCON

[conehead]

Open Letter to the Prime Minister
From Former Air Force Commanders
Dear Prime Minister,
As former commanders of Canada’s air force, we respectfully but urgently ask that your government not proceed with the plan to purchase a fleet of Super Hornet aircraft as an interim measure pending the eventual replacement of our venerable CF-18 fighters. It is our firm belief that the interim strategy is ill-advised, costly and unnecessary. Most important, it would significantly impair the Royal Canadian Air Force for years to come and ultimately damage the nation’s defence posture. The situation is complex, but our call for dropping the Super Hornet buy is based on some compelling facts, which we offer for your consideration.
First, we have serious misgivings about the use of a “capability gap” as the basis for your interim plan. Your government’s newly created policy calling for the Royal Canadian Air Force to meet its NATO and NORAD treaty obligations concurrently does not reflect a real and sudden change in the strategic situation. In our experience, it has been decades since Canada had sufficient fighter aircraft to meet all our commitments simultaneously. Over the years the air force, by judiciously balancing strategic risks and available resources, has managed its operational contributions reasonably well. We certainly welcome any initiative that promises to close the longstanding capability gap, but purchasing eighteen Super Hornet aircraft would in fact exacerbate the gap in the near to mid-term by imposing a heavy burden on the RCAF’s existing resources without producing a meaningful increase in fighter availability.
Although the Super Hornet does have some commonality with our current CF-18s, it is a different airplane, requiring its own training system for pilots and technicians, as well as new flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations specific to the Super Hornet. The air force would have to draw personnel from the existing CF-18 fighter fleet (usually its most experienced people) to help bring into service a new and more complex fleet of fighter aircraft. But that would not be enough. It would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots. Recent experience indicates that the RCAF would face difficulty in achieving this; it can take four to five years from recruitment to produce fully trained, operationally ready pilots and specialists for advanced fighter aircraft. We foresee that bringing in an interim fleet would create serious practical problems of this kind.
Quite apart from such technical issues, we are aware that buying, operating and supporting an interim fleet of Super Hornets would be an expensive proposition, with cost estimates ranging from $5-$7 billion. We therefore ask that your government seek a better way of keeping the RCAF operationally effective until its fleet of CF-18s is replaced with a modern fighter.
To this end, we respectfully recommend that three important initiatives be undertaken.
First, the RCAF should be given the necessary resources to conduct an aggressive recruiting and training process to eliminate existing personnel shortfalls and to provide for the interim period leading to CF-18 replacement.
Second, if your government feels compelled to acquire additional fighters for the interim, it should seriously examine the prospect of purchasing so-called legacy Hornets (i.e. basically the same as our current CF-18s) that are increasingly becoming available as Canada’s partner nations replace their older Hornet fleets with the F-35. For example, both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will have surplus F-18s that are very close in configuration to our own. These would require very little modification to make them essentially identical to the CF-18, having the same operational effectiveness and excellent safety record as today’s fleet. The capability exists in the Canadian aerospace industry to do the necessary modifications. The acquisition cost would be a fraction of a Super Hornet buy. Of critical importance, all the training, logistics and infrastructure needed to support the additional CF18s are already in place, and the larger CF-18 fleet would fill the operational capability gap in the interim. All of this would be achieved without the cost, delay and disruption of burdening the RCAF with a second fleet of fighters.
Finally, and emphatically, we urge the government to proceed without further delay to implement the open and fair competition that you promised for replacement of our CF-18s. Completing this within the next few years is entirely feasible, and it would allow for a faster, more effective and much less costly transition to full operational service by the CF-18’s eventual replacement. 
We offer these recommendations based on our collective experience of many years of serving Canada’s air force, with the sole purpose of bringing to your attention some important realities regarding the future of the RCAF and the nation’s defence. We look to you for wisdom in resolving the matters that we have placed before you.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Larry Ashley
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Yvan Blondin 
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Lloyd Campbell
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Bill Carr, 
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) André Deschamps
 Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Huddleston
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Kinsman
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Steve Lucas
General (Ret’d) Paul Manson
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Don McNaughton
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Ken Pennie
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Fred Sutherland
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Angus Watt

[Kip Powick]

Well..... I wish them good luck. Even though they are all retired I hope their voices are heard and they don't fall in the same venue as retired  Air Canada pilots.

[bluemic]

Interesting article from the land Dununda relating to F35 costs and spin-offs.  Wonder how it compares to our 'stop-gap' Super Hornets?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/joint-strike-fighters-to-make-public-debut-at-avalon-air-show/8320856

[Guest]

Looks like our shopping list has been sent.  story link: http://globalnews.ca/news/3308918/liberals-super-hornet-fighter-jets/

March 14, 2017 1:51 pm

Liberals take next step on Super Hornet fighter jet deal

By Staff The Canadian Press"The Liberal government has taken the next step towards buying 18 Super Hornet fighter jets on an interim basis, a purchase it hopes to make official by year's end." />;

The Liberal government has taken the next step towards buying 18 Super Hornet fighter jets on an interim basis, a purchase it hopes to make official by year's end.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere

 

OTTAWA – The Liberal government has taken the next step towards buying 18 Super Hornet fighter jets on an interim basis, a purchase it hopes to make official by year’s end.

The government sent a letter to the U.S. government on Tuesday outlining exactly what it needs in the warplanes, when it needs them, and what type of economic benefits Canada expects in return.

READ MORE: Super Hornet fighter jet costs being examined by budget watchdog

Aerospace giant Boeing will use those requirements to draw up with a formal proposal by the fall, with the government hoping for a contract by the end of 2017 or early 2018.

The Liberals have said any deal will be contingent on getting the Super Hornets at the right price, on the required schedule and with the right economic spinoffs.

WATCH: Trudeau Liberals wasting taxpayer dollars on Super Hornet fighter jet deal: critics

“We will assess whether an interim Super Hornet fleet purchase will help ensure Canada remains a credible and dependable ally for many years to come,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said in a statement Tuesday.

The agreement must also be approved by the U.S. Congress.

The government announced in November its plans to augment Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet with the new Hornets until a full competition to replace the CF-18s can start in 2019.

The Liberals say the Super Hornets are needed because the air force doesn’t have enough jets to be ready to defend North America and contribute to NATO at the same time.

READ MORE: Liberals force over 200 federal workers to sign lifetime secrecy agreement over fighter jet plans 

But a number of retired military officers have called for an immediate competition, warning an interim fighter fleet will be more expensive and hurt the military in the long run.

Sources have said the Liberals plan to purchase the Super Hornets using money the previous Conservative government originally set aside for F-35 stealth fighters.

But they will almost certainly need to find additional money to replace the CF-18s, either through their new defence policy or by cutting other projects.

[Guest]

Seems that the "New Politically neutral Senate" is that, at least based on the following recommendation: I have posted this article in the regular forum as it does pertain to the original topic.

Ottawa should cancel Super Hornet acquisition, say senators

• 12 May, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Dominic Perry
• London

Canadian politicians have recommended that the country cancel its proposed acquisition of 18 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, describing the plan as a "political decision" that fails to serve either the air force or taxpayers.

In November 2016 Ottawa signalled its intention to buy the Super Hornets as an interim measure while it carried out a competition to decide on a long-term replacement for its aged fleet of CF-188s.

It had previously planned to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force, but backed away from the Joint Strike Fighter last year on cost grounds.

But a Canadian senate committee on defence believes that the country should walk away from the stopgap measure.

In its report Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces: a plan for the future, released in early May, the committee says the move will be costly – between $5-7 billion – "and will limit our air force's ability to be fully interoperable within NORAD and NATO".

It cites a letter written by 13 former senior RCAF officers which argues that the acquisition of such a small fleet – sharing only limited commonality with its current fighters – will be needlessly costly.

"The government's decision not to proceed with the procurement process for a new fighter fleet and purchasing an unnecessary and costly interim capability will leave the taxpayers with a significant burden and [RCAF] with a duplicate support system that will cost billions of dollars in equipment, training, and technical know-how.

"This burden would be eliminated if the government were to move forward with the selection of the F-35."

Additional costs would be incurred through continued operation of the current legacy Hornets well into the 2030s, it says.

Royal Canadian Air Force

It calls on defence ministry to "immediately" begin a contest to select the CF-188's replacement, with a decision to made by 30 June 2018.

Although the next-generation fighter programme will be the most expensive acquisition for Canada, the committee has an extensive shopping list for modernisation of all three branches of the armed forces.

New aerial refuelling tankers, martime patrol aircraft, unmanned air vehicles and helicopters are all proposed in the report.

Defence minister Harjit Singh Sajjan recently indicated that it was vital to secure funding to modernise the RCAF's fleets of AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and Bell Helicopter CH-146 Griffons or face losing them to obsolescence issues.

However, the committee calls for a bolder approach. It recommends replacing all but 40 of the service's 95 Griffon utility helicopters – which are based on the commercial Bell 412EP – with a "non-civilian aircraft" as well as 24 attack helicopters.

It believes the air force requires a utility helicopter "with more lift capacity" which is not based on a civilian rotorcraft, following operational experience with the Griffon.

"It was deemed to be ineffective to support significant military needs, especially during deployment in Afghanistan," the report says.

The strategy would appear to narrow the field of potential alternatives down to either the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk or, less likely, the NH Industries NH90.

Attack helicopters are needed, it believes, in order to protect the RCAF's fleet of 15 Boeing CH-147F heavy-lift rotorcraft, "one to protect each Chinook while on deployment".

But, in addition, it also recommends expanding the Chinook fleet from 15 to 36 examples of the tandem-rotor type.

Ottawa is currently in the "options analysis phase" of its Cormorant mid-life upgrade initiative, which is expected to cost between $500 million and $1.5 billion and keep the CH-149s in service until 2040.

Royal Canadian Air Force

The committee says this capability should be bolstered by the modification and reactivation of the nine VH-71 airframes it acquired from the USA for spare parts; both helicopters are based on the UK-built AW101.

Priority should also be given to the replacement of the air force's Airbus A310-based CC-150 Polaris tankers. "These aircraft are already some 25 years old," it notes.

Although there are already plans to replace the current maritime patrol fleet of Lockheed CP-140 Auroras – a decision on a new Canadian Multi-purpose Aircraft is scheduled for 2025, with deliveries running from 2026-2036 – the committee underscores that this effort should be an "essential component" of the air force's renewal, with the new platform in place by 2030.

One of Canada's many long-running and as yet undelivered programmes centres on UAVs, with its JUSTAS surveillance effort dating from at least 2012. So far, no platform has been identified as meeting Ottawa's requirements.

The committee recommends that the government "expedite" the acquisition of UAVs "which includes sufficient options towards meeting the individual needs of the three services" before the end of 2018.

In addition, it should buy "multi-purpose systems" which can both secure Canada's borders and deliver "an armed capability to support Canadian armed forces operations".

Canada's problematic procurement process – widely regarded as an example of worst practice – is one of the reasons for the country's equipment issues.

But a separate report from the committee, issued last month, hopes to address this. It calls on the government to "fix Canada's shambolic military procurement system", giving the country's defence department responsibility for all its acquisitions. At the moment that is handled by the Public Services and Procurement Canada body.

"Continuing [with] this broken system is unacceptable," the report says.

[Guest]

The F35 is big and expensive,for our limited needs,  perhaps this type of fighter will serve

A-29 Super Tucano Selected For USAF's Light Attack Demo

May 12, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

 

WASHINGTON -- In a move predicted by many, the U.S. Air Force invited Sierra Nevada and Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano to participate in a light attack demonstration this summer that could eventually lead to procurement of low-cost light fighter fleet, the companies announced May 12. 

The Super Tucano, the only light air support aircraft in the world with a U.S. Air Force Military Type Certificate, was a shoo-in for the OA-X demonstration from the start. The turboprop, designed for close-air support (CAS), counterinsurgency and aerial reconnaissance missions in low-threat environments, is already proving itself in operations with the Afghan Air Force. Designed to operate in high temperatures and extremely rugged terrain, the A-29 is highly maneuverable and has a low heat signature. 

It also has historically lower operating costs than most jets, an advantage in tight budget times. The Air Force has said affordability will be key to the OA-X effort, if a program of record emerges. 

“The A-29 is uniquely suited for training and seasoning fighter pilots,” said Jackson Schneider, president and CEO of Embraer Defense & Security, according to the announcement. “This means more highly-trained pilots more quickly and less expensively, while allowing other platforms to do the work they do best.” 

Textron has also offered its Scorpion jet and AT-6 turboprop to the Air Force for the Holloman demonstration. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have opted not to participate in this early stage of the OA-X effort, and Northrop Grumman has declined to comment. 

The Air Force's upcoming experiment, scheduled to take place in June at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, is the first step toward potentially fielding a low-cost, light-attack aircraft to fight terrorists in the Middle East. The potential 300-aircraft buy could also help alleviate the service's growing pilot shortage, providing additional seats for training. The service has said it is looking to choose up to four industry partners to bring one or two off-the-shelf aircraft to Holloman for a capability assessment.

The Holloman demonstration will inform the Air Force’s decision on whether or not to procure a light-attack fleet. However, the Air Force has stressed that the effort is in the experimentation phase, and no program of record has been initiated. The assessment at Holloman could lead to another experiment, a combat demonstration, or even an immediate acquisition program, said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s military acquisition deputy.

The Air Force earlier this year released a list of notional requirements for the companies looking to participate in the experiment. The aircraft selected must be able to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance, and operate from austere locations, according to the list. Qualifying aircraft need to be able to support a high operations tempo of 900 flight hours per year for 10 years, and have a 90% mission capable rate for day and night missions. 

The aircraft must be able to take off using a maximum runway length of 6,000 ft., and be equipped with secure tactical communications and the ability to hit stationary or moving targets day and night. In addition, qualifying jets must have a 2.5-hr. mission endurance with an average fuel flow of approximately 1,500 lb./hr. or less. The aircraft will also be evaluated for survivability, including infrared and visual signature.

[Kip Powick]

[Guest]

Here is what another nation is doing. We have yet to see a "real" plan from our current government. http://globalnews.ca/news/3308918/liberals-super-hornet-fighter-jets/

Finland analyses responses in Hornet replacement effort

• 18 May, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Dominic Perry
• London

Finland is continuing to analyse responses to a request for information it issued last year as part of the HX programme to replace its air force’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets.

It anticipates beginning the formal selection process in early 2018, when it will send a request for quotation (RFQ) to five manufacturers. These are Boeing, BAE Systems (representing Eurofighter), Dassault, Lockheed Martin and Saab, for their respective F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E.

Lauri Puranen, HX project manager at the Finnish defence ministry, says it will not be overly prescriptive in its specifications, allowing bidders to propose a range of solutions – both manned and unmanned – to meet a number of key scenarios.

However, Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen.

“It is still possible in the RFQ that someone would provide a solution which could include a fighter and a [signals intelligence] SIGINT aircraft together. It is still open,” he says.

Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen, but acknowledges that the capability could be met in different ways. “If somebody provides that capability working with the fighter and that solution looks good, then it’s up to the providers.”

However, Puranen stresses that Finland is not actively seeking SIGINT or unmanned aircraft as part of the acquisition.

The defence ministry has also not prioritised low-observability or other performance characteristics, but stresses that the aircraft must be able to link with the air force’s command and control system, and that of the wider Finnish defence forces, without any modifications.

“The fighter should strengthen our national capabilities. Only the Finnish defence forces will take care of our defence,” he says, noting that the country is not a NATO member.

In-country trials of all five proposed aircraft will take place in late 2019 and early 2020 in order to demonstrate performance in severe weather conditions.

Selection of the preferred bidder is scheduled for 2021, with deliveries running between 2025-2030.

Helsinki has provisionally allocated €7-10 billion ($7.79-11.1 billion) for the acquisition, based on the government's latest defence white paper, but this could change depending on the outcome of elections due in 2019.

[Guest]

The Liberals just answered my question as to if they have a "real" plan. Appears not.

F-35 jets waiting in wings as Liberals’ ‘interim’ Super Hornet purchase in limbo

 

‎Yesterday, ‎May ‎19, ‎2017, ‏‎5:00:08 PM | Marie-Danielle Smith

OTTAWA — The federal government’s suggestion it may trash plans to buy “interim” fighter jets from aerospace giant Boeing Co. may open up a window for F-35 producer Lockheed Martin Corp. to swoop into.

Boeing convinced the U.S. Commerce Department and International Trade Commission this week to launch an investigation into much-subsidized Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. for “dumping” commercial airplanes into the U.S. market — a dispute overshadowed by an impending renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s subsequent chastening and promise Thursday to review military procurement involving Boeing leaves in limbo Canada’s purchase of 18 Super Hornet jets, a deal expected to cost $5 billion to $7 billion.

A spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin — which, meanwhile, is partnering with Bombardier on a U.S. Air Force procurement — reacted Friday, saying the company “would openly welcome discussions about interim fighter solutions.”

Still, said Cindy Tessier, “it would be inappropriate for Lockheed Martin to comment directly on a matter between the Government of Canada and another company.”

A government official argued Friday that Freeland couldn’t take a business-as-usual approach with Boeing after its attack — especially because the same processes recently led to new tariffs being imposed on Canadian softwood lumber. An army of lawyers is working on avoiding the same outcome for Canadian aerospace.

Related

• Ottawa hints Boeing shouldn’t take military contracts for granted in trade spat with Bombardier
• Matthew Fisher: Super Hornets would make Canada reliant on U.S. jets to defend Arctic, ex-fighter pilots say
• Retired air chiefs urge Liberals to ditch ‘costly and unnecessary’ plan to buy Super Hornet jets

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly lent his support to Bombardier Friday. But he avoided speculating on alternative options for interim jets.

In a statement Friday, Boeing spokesman Dan Curran said the company has a “deep relationship” with Canada and “our case is focused on the Bombardier company, not the country at large.”

Curran said “substantial government subsidies have enabled Bombardier’s predatory pricing” in the U.S. In February, the federal government extended a $372.5 million interest-free loan to the company, and last year, for a 49.5-per-cent share, Quebec offered a US$1 billion investment in the CSeries jets with which Boeing takes issue.  

A Bombardier statement, meanwhile, said the giant’s accusations are “unfounded” and noted Boeing has “never lost a sale” in competition with the specific planes being targeted.

Freeland pointed out many of Bombardier’s suppliers are based in the U.S. and components directly support “high-paying jobs in many U.S. states.”

Reuters reported Friday Boeing executives were concerned about the fighter jet deal getting swept up in the commercial plane dispute. Its defence unit was seeking meetings with Canadian officials to smooth the waters.

In addition to Lockheed Martin, other potential winners include rival makers of jets Dassault Aviation SA, Airbus SE and Saab AB, analysts told Reuters.

Handout, Lockheed Martin The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

David Perry, senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Canada’s posturing on a review or delay to the fighter jet purchase is hard to square with its insistence a capability gap urgently needs addressing. “It seems more like a negotiating ploy, potentially,” he said.

Reacting to the Boeing statement, Conservative defence critic James Bezan told reporters, “if the government is so blatantly willing to throw away the contract, it says to me that there is no capability gap, that they imagined it right from the start .… The government is looking for a way to get out of that commitment.”

Canada had announced the intention to explore the purchase of Boeing aircraft last November and defence minister Harjit Sajjan locked in that position in February, saying overtly: “we are buying new Super Hornets.”

The government said it would launch an open competition for a full fleet before the next federal election.

Years of indecision have delayed the replacement of the current aging fleet. Liberals backed away from a Harper government decision to purchase Lockheed Martin jets (though acknowledging the company’s right to bid in a competition) despite Canada’s continued participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program along with the U.S.

Perry said he believes the “interim purchase first, competition later” approach will be more costly in the long run. But he noted Liberals have repeatedly doubled down on the plan, despite criticisms. “I don’t really see an inclination on the government’s part, so far, that they’re going to move away from that,” he said.

Although it is early to predict what may come of this week’s aerospace dispute — a decision from the trade commission isn’t expected until June 12 — Liberals have potentially boxed themselves into a corner.

If the government is serious about retaliating, should Boeing prove successful, and if it is also serious about buying fighter jets to fill an immediate capability gap, ahead of a competition, few easy options remain that wouldn’t break a Liberal election promise: “we will not buy the F-35.”

[Guest]

Belongs in this topic but also in Political....

Andrew Coyne: ‘Urgent’ Super Hornets just another pawn in Trudeau’s desire to prop up Bombardier

Andrew Coyne | May 24, 2017 9:00 PM ET

Back in November, when the Liberal government announced it would be making an “interim” purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing, it was all about the need for speed.

There wasn’t time to hold an “open competition” to select a permanent replacement for the air force’s aging fleet of CF-18s, as the Liberals had promised during the election. The reason: the government had discovered a critical “capability gap” in our air defences that had to be filled at once.

Well, here we are in May, and the Super Hornets that were supposedly so urgently necessary to the defence of our national borders turn out to be just another in the apparently endless list of pawns to be sacrificed in pursuit of the Trudeau government’s real and only strategic objective, propping up Montreal-based Bombardier Inc.

Billions of dollars in direct and indirect aid to Bombardier, from both the federal and Quebec governments, having met with the entirely predictable response from its competitors — not only a suit before the World Trade Organization on behalf of Brazil’s Embraer, but latterly a complaint to the U.S. Commerce department by Boeing, demanding retaliatory duties of nearly 160 per cent — the government has now taken the unprecedented step of tying an important procurement decision to the outcome of a private trade dispute.

“Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing,” Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland declared last week, adding: “Our government will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry and our aerospace workers.” As if the implied threats were not quite heavy-handed enough, Canada’s ambassador to Washington, David MacNaughton, volunteered his opinion that Boeing, by availing itself of the remedies for alleged unfair trade practices prescribed under the laws of the United States, was guilty of “lousy customer relations.” Nice little fighter-jet deal you got there. Pity if anything should happen to it.

 

The particulars of the dispute, we should be clear, are not the issue. Whatever the technical definition of an illegal export subsidy, there is no doubt that Bombardier is the beneficiary of government subsidy — many of them, in fact. Neither is there much disagreement that last year’s sale of 75 CSeries passenger jets to Delta — at a substantial loss — would not have been possible, for a company that was deep in debt and rapidly running out of cash, without the timely arrival of $1.3 billion in aid from the government of Quebec. Bombardier does not even bother to deny much of this. It says only that the scale of the support, and the discount on the planes, was not unusual or out of bounds, in an industry in which all of the players, including Boeing, are heavily subsidized.

Which is true. It doesn’t make any side’s subsidy any smarter — indeed, that all sides are subsidizing each other’s jets to a draw only makes the stupidity of the whole exercise more obvious. Neither is the folly of one government’s subsidy made less by another’s tariff. Rather than punish Delta for exploiting Bombardier’s weakness, the U.S. government would be better advised to take the Quebec taxpayers’ money and run.

So everyone’s in the wrong. That’s not the point. The point, rather, is that the government of Canada seems willing to escalate a dispute between two private companies into an all-out trade war — one that, as by far the smaller partner, we are in no position to win. If there is any country that has an interest in a rules-based approach to resolving trade disputes, it is us. If the U.S. is abusing its own trade laws, there are other and better remedies available to us than cancelling procurement deals, whether through NAFTA or the WTO. If it is not — if it is we who are in the wrong, legally speaking — all the more reason not to do so.

It’s not clear what the government’s end game is. Suppose our bluff is called — Boeing refuses to withdraw its complaint, the relevant U.S. authorities find in its favour, the tariffs are applied. Is it really ready to nix the Super Hornets deal in response?

Perhaps it is. The “interim” purchase has been almost universally criticized by military experts as an expensive distraction: what is needed, nearly everyone agrees, is to get started on acquiring a permanent replacement fleet. The “capability gap” was a transparent invention: the underlying rationale, that we had to be ready to meet all of our NATO and NORAD obligations simultaneously, had never previously been part of defence doctrine.

Absolutely nothing stands in the way, in other words, of the government going ahead with the promised competition — nothing, except the Liberals’ other, and contradictory, promise that the Lockheed F-35 favoured by the previous Conservative government would not be part of it. But a truly open competition would expose the government to the embarrassing risk that the F-35, against which the Liberals had inveighed to much political effect, might win. So: put off the competition until after the next election, using the interim purchase as a pretext. If it costs $12 billion, all in, for planes that would likely be junked in 10 years, well, what price power?

But now the Liberals have dragged one costly policy misstep into the midst of another, trapping themselves in yet another fork of their own making. Either the Super Hornets are an urgently needed stopgap for a glaring deficiency in our military capacity, in which case the Liberals’ clumsy attempt at blackmail, if it does not collapse in humiliation, would trade away national security for the benefit of a failing, but well-connected, private company.

Or the planes, contrary to the government’s repeated assurances, were every bit as expendable as they now appear — in which case the Liberals merely broke a key election promise and lied about it. Either way, it seems so unlike them.

[Fido]

and because this is a Quebec issue then the rest of the country be damned

[Guest]

Interesting article on the Boeing Fighters.

Boeing Touts Advanced Fighter Versions As ‘Different Animals’

May 25, 2017James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

 

When Lockheed Martin’s X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 to win the trillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter program in 2001, Boeing might have thought its days in the fighter business were numbered. Sixteen years later, Boeing’s F-15 and F/A-18 programs appear to have survived the stealth craze of the past two decades that threatened to render them obsolete in the fighter market.

As Lockheed’s F-35 Lightning II and now-terminated F-22 Raptor languished in overcost and overschedule development programs, Boeing capitalized, rolling newer and more advanced mission systems, sensors and weaponry into new versions of its Eagle, Super Hornet and Growler platforms, which the company says make them competitive with so-called fifth-generation warplanes.

By applying “iterative innovation,” the same technology-insertion tactic that will keep its CH-47 Chinook and AH-64 Apache rotorcraft flying through 2060, the company has secured a future for its fighter production lines into the early-2020s, and probably beyond. The aircraft themselves will be in operation past 2040.

NOT STEALTHY, BUT MORE FIREPOWER

Airframe life of new F-15s extended to 20,000 flight hours

Boeing’s fly-by-wire F-15 unlocks two more weapon stations

Boeing to flight test 22-missile Advanced Missile Bomb Ejector Rack, for F-15

New deals would secure F/A-18 and F-15 production through mid-2020s

Navy and Boeing negotiating contract for Advanced EA-18G Growler

The U.S. Navy already has all the Super Hornets it originally intended to buy, but new threats and force requirements could prompt it to buy as many as 120 additional F/A-18s, while transitioning to Boeing’s Block 3 model beyond fiscal 2019. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force has more than $12 billion earmarked for C-model Eagle and E-model Strike Eagle upgrades through 2025, not including the $5 billion already spent by Boeing and its international customers on F-15 improvements over the past 6-7 years.

Boeing believes it now possesses aircraft that can match or exceed the F-35 and F-22 technologically, not counting the superior low-observable designs of the F-22 and F-35. Many of the advanced sensors and weapon systems being introduced on the F/A-18 and F-15 will not be rolled into the F-35 until Block 4 in the 2020s.

Despite the lack of the low-observable shape and antennas needed for all-aspect stealth on the aircraft, “when the door is knocked down, you want the range, firepower and connectivity that we can provide,” Boeing says. The company says it would need to put “new wrappers” on the F/A-18 and F-15, something that Boeing Phantom Works appears to be doing, which would make them as competitive against integrated air defense systems in a high-end conflict as the Lockheed F-22 and F-35. But for almost all other combat scenarios, including air-to-air, air-to-ground and counter-sea missions, the “Advanced F-15” and “Advanced F/A-18” are ideal.

“For an in-production air-superiority aircraft, nothing compares to an F-15 today,” says Steve Parker, Boeing Military Aircraft vice president of F-15 programs. “Nothing flies faster, nothing goes higher, nothing carries more,” he adds.

 

Boeing says electronic-warfare upgrades and infrared signature reduction will help improve the F/A-18 Super Hornet’s survivability. Credit: Boeing

The company has dropped its former “Silent Eagle” concept, in which weapons would be carried internally to reduce the aircraft’s radar signature. Boeing asserts that potential adversaries have caught up with stealth technology by switching frequencies; introducing more powerful active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with faster computer processors; and installing new long-range, wider-search infrared search-and-track pods.

Almost every proposed Silent Eagle capability, barring the conformal internal weapons bays, have been carried forward into the advanced Eagle configurations being delivered to Saudi Arabia (F-15SA), proposed to Qatar (F-15QA) and considered by Israel.

The U.S. Air Force upgrades will provide what Boeing claims to be the world’s fastest military aircraft mission computer (the Advanced Display Core Processor II) and most powerful electronic-warfare suite (BAE Systems’ Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System).

 

Boeing has already installed the new Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA radar on 125 of approximately 200 air-superiority F-15C Eagles and is gearing up to install the Raytheon APG-82(V)1 on another 200 or so F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers. The U.S.’s F-15 technology road map is valued at more than $12 billion through 2025.

The newest single- and tandem-seat Eagles Boeing builds today have fly-by-wire flight controls that allow weapon stations No. 1 and No. 9 to be activated, increasing the number of weapons or sensors carried per sorties. With the new Advanced Missile Bomb Ejector Rack, the Eagle’s missile carriage will be expanded to 22 missiles per sortie from 16.

Both front and back seats have Digital Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems, and future versions will come with the improved wide-area display cockpit and low-profile head-up display Boeing has been developing with its suppliers. Today’s F-15s are powered by twin General Electric F110-129 turbofans, the engine chosen by Saudi Arabia. The aircraft is also compatible with GE’s more powerful F110-132, which powers the United Arab Emirates’ Lockheed F-16E/F Block 60 fighters. “We’re engine-agnostic,” Parker says.

One of the most significant changes to the Eagle is its airframe design life. The Eagles the U.S. flies today are rated to 9,000 flight hours, whereas the Advanced F-15’s wing and fuselage have been strengthened to achieve 20,000 hr.

“It’s a different animal today,” Parker says. “It looks kind of the same, but it is very, very different. We have a road map that takes the F-15 out into the 2040 time frame.”

One or two years ago, Boeing had few prospects for new production of the F-15 and F/A-18 in St. Louis, but that has changed.

Boeing says current orders continue F-15 production through 2019; near-term deals would push production into the late-2022 time frame; and “we also have potential opportunities we are working now that would take the production line just past the mid-2020s,” Parker says. Boeing has all but secured a deal for “up to 72” Qatari F-15QAs, and another customer in the region, likely Israel, is considering a sizable order.

 

Boeing hasn’t delivered new Strike Eagles to the U.S. military since the mid-2000s, but Parker would welcome new orders to boost fighter capacity. So far, the Air Force is not interested in new F-15s, but it does have plans to replace the F-15C with a sixth-generation aircraft, termed Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA). Parker anticipates continued investment in the F-15C until the PCA aircraft is developed and delivered in the numbers required. Structural upgrades will keep the 1970s bird flying into the 2030s, he says.

On the F/A-18 side, the Navy has decided to keep buying Super Hornets alongside the F-35C to meet an immediate need for greater numbers of strike fighters. The service’s program of record was 563 aircraft, but now Boeing sees opportunities for significant follow-on orders. All aircraft delivered after fiscal 2019, for domestic and international customers, will be Block 3 versions. 

Kuwait has been approved to buy “up to 40” F/A-18E/Fs, and Canada is considering an “interim fleet” of about 18 aircraft to bolster its outdated CF-18 Hornet force. The Canadian deal could fall through, depending on how hard Boeing pushes its trade dispute with Canada over government subsidies to Montreal-based Bombardier on the commercial aircraft market. The Super Hornet is also being promoted to India, Finland and could compete for Canada’s larger CF-18 replacement. Boeing recently lost to Lockheed’s F-35 in Denmark.

Larry Burt, Boeing’s director of global sales and marketing for global strike programs, says near-term opportunities would take F/A-18 production through to the mid-2020s. The company needs to build about 24 Super Hornets per year for production to remain viable.

 

As different as the Block 3 version of the Super Hornet is from its predecessors, Boeing is already looking at capabilities for Block 4.

“We’re not trying to be the F-35; you don’t need a fifth-gen for all missions,” he says. However, he adds that it is easier to evolve and enhance the F/A-18 and F-15 airframes than low-observable platforms, like the F-35. 

“You could keep evolving the mission systems, sensors and capability of the Super Hornet and maybe eventually put a new wrapper on it,” Burt says.

The Growler is a story of “incremental innovation” for Boeing. The Navy has almost doubled its original program of record to about 160 Growlers from 88.

The service is now moving forward with planned upgrades that will keep the aircraft relevant into the 2040s. The centerpiece of the “Advanced Growler” is Northrop Grumman’s Next-Generation Jammer, which passed a critical design review in April. A complementary feature is improvements to the Growler’s integrated ALQ-218 radar warning, electronic support and electronic intelligence system, also produced by Northrop.

Boeing says it is still in contract negotiations with the U.S. Navy to pull all of the planned Growler upgrades into a single service-life upgrade program, which will include an extension of the aircraft’s structural service life from 6,000 to 9,000 hr. Boeing is also pushing the GE F414 Enhanced Engine for the Growler and Super Hornet, which would provide 18% more power.

 

For strike operations, the Advanced F-15 can carry 16 Small-Diameter Bombers, four AIM-120 Amraams, two AGM-88 HARMs, one 2,000-lb. JDAM-ER and two 600-gal. fuel tanks. Credit: Boeing

Australia is the only other operator of the Growler platform, and it is already positioning to acquire the Next-Generation Jammer.

The potential Super Hornet deals with Canada and Kuwait do not include Growlers, Boeing confirms. 

[Guest]

And in the mean time, more money for the F35.

Liberals fork over $30M to stay at F-35 table

Trade dispute with Boeing casting shadow

• Calgary Herald
• 26 May 2017
• LEE BERTHIAUME The Canadian Press

• Canada has quietly paid another $30 million toward development of the F-35 — money that could become insurance in the trade dispute between U.S. aerospace firm Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier.

The annual payment was made to the U.S. military at the end of April, the Department of National Defence says, and will keep Canada at the table as one of nine partners in the fighter jet project for the next year.

Canada has paid US$373 million into the program since 1997, National Defence spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said in an email.

Staying in the program has advantages, as partners can compete for billions of dollars worth of contracts associated with building and maintaining the F-35.

They also get a discount when purchasing the plane.

That latter point wasn’t considered much of a benefit when Canada paid its annual instalment last year, as the Liberals had promised during the 2015 election not to buy the stealth fighter.

The government instead went out of its way last July to highlight the potential benefits to Canada’s aerospace industry when explaining why it had decided to stick with the program.

Those industrial benefits continue to accrue, Lamirande said, with Canadian companies having secured US$926 million in F-35-related contracts over the past 20 years — including US$114 million in the past year alone.

But the trade dispute between Boeing, which builds Super Hornet fighter jets, the F-35’s main competitor, and Montreal-based Bombardier casts the decision to stick with the stealth-fighter program in a new light.

Citing an urgent need for more fighter jets, the Liberal government announced last November plans to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets until a competition could be held to replace Canada’s entire CF-18 fleet.

But then last week, the government threatened to scrap the Super Hornet purchase after Boeing persuaded the U.S. Department of Commerce to launch an investigation against Bombardier.

Boeing alleges Bombardier sold its CSeries jets in the U.S. at an unfair discount thanks to subsidies from the Canadian government, while Bombardier says its planes never competed with Boeing.

Many defence analysts and former air force officers have questioned whether “interim” fighter jets are needed and instead want an immediate competition to replace all of the CF-18s.

But if more jets are truly needed on a short-term basis, the decision to stay at the F-35 table could be used to get a better deal on interim stealth fighters — or even as a bargaining chip against Boeing.

“If the government is in fact serious about re-evaluating its dealings with Boeing, then this could be part of showing that,” said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“Because the F-35, at least in my mind, would be a possible alternative if the government remains committed to buying separate interim aircraft.”

Three other alternatives exist — the Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale — but all are made by European companies and the government has emphasized the need for a U.S. design.

Lockheed Martin, the company behind the F-35, has remained relatively quiet about the government’s plan to buy interim Super Hornets, but is now chomping at the bit for a chance to fill any potential gap.

The U.S. company “would openly welcome discussions about interim fighter solutions,” spokeswoman Cindy Tessier said, adding that Lockheed has partnered with Bombardier on another military project.

Boeing, for its part, has emphasized its long-standing relationship with Canada, even as representatives from its defence division have scrambled to meet and smooth the edges with Canadian officials.

The U.S. International Trade Commission, which heard arguments from both aerospace companies in a hearing last week, isn’t expected to issue a ruling until June 12.

DEFENCE ANALYSTS QUESTION NEED FOR INTERIM JETS.

[Guest]

Super Hornets see boost in new US budget request

• 26 May, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Leigh Giangreco
• Washington DC

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would add funding to buy up to 74 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets through 2022, or 60 more than planned in previous budget forecasts.

The Navy is requesting 14 Super Hornets in Fiscal 2018 to mitigate the service’s strike fighter shortfall, officials said this week. In addition, Trump’s budget proposal inserts new plans to procure 23 more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2019, 14 in FY2020, 14 in FY2021 and 15 in FY2022. The recent request not only includes funding for new Super Hornets, but also advanced procurement dollars to address advanced capabilities.

While Boeing celebrated the intended purchase of new F/A-18E/Fs as a sign that the Trump administration would commit to funding Super Hornets year after year, the status of the five-year funding plan is not settled. During a budget rollout briefing this week, Pentagon officials warned that procurement numbers beyond FY2018 would be subject to change following the outcome of a defence strategy review due this August. John Roth, the Pentagon's deputy comptroller, emphasised that the long-term budget was not informed by strategy or policy.

“We have focused on getting a budget ready for FY2017 and then we pivoted to get '18 done to meet this date as well, the secretary has not spent anytime looking beyond '18,” he says.

Trump’s FY2018 request continues a steady procurement for the navy. Although FY2018 budget documents detail 26 F/A-18E/Fs procured in FY2017, the Navy only received funding to procure 14 fighters for that year. The original FY2017 base budget did not call for a Super Hornet order, but did request two aircraft using overseas contingency operations funding. When the navy released its unfunded priorities list, it included a request for 12 Super Hornets. The service called for another 12 in a supplemental budget released after the election, but those dozen aircraft were not funded.

In February, Trump appeared to foreshadow a larger F/A-18E/F order during a visit to Boeing’s manufacturing complex in North Charleston, South Carolina.

“Do you care if we use the F/A-18 Super Hornets?” Trump asked. “We are looking seriously at a big order. The problem is that [Boeing CEO] Dennis [Muilenberg] is a very tough negotiator, but I think we may get there.”

[Maverick]

 

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

[Guest]

Seems the Libs can not keep on a path that will help out our RCAF and our Nato commitments. Seems to be a case of "Quebec First" and the hell with the actual needs.  

More doubt cast over Super Hornet sale as Liberals break contact with Boeing

'Not the most opportune time to share this good news story,' Boeing says as it cancels partners announcement

By Murray Brewster, CBC NewsPosted: Jun 01, 2017 12:12 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 01, 2017 5:52 PM ETter jet purchase escalated Thursday with an acknowledgement that federal officials have been instructed to break off contact with the U.S. aerospace giant.

"We have suspended discussions with Boeing and that is what we have decided," Steve MacKinnon, the parliamentary secretary for the public works minister, told reporters following a speech to defence contractors.  

Last March, the federal government submitted a request to the Pentagon for a government-to-government purchase of 18 Super Hornets, on an urgent basis, to fulfill what the Liberals have claimed is a capability gap in the fighter jet fleet.

As part of that request, National Defence and Public Works officials hold regular discussions with the aircraft-maker in order to iron out details and deliver the specific requirements of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

It is those talks that have been suspended, according to MacKinnon.

"There are lots of things we can talk to them about, but we have cut off those discussions," he said. 

The dispute, which had largely played out behind closed doors, spilled into the open Wednesday when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan publicly called out Boeing in front of a room full of defence contractors over the company's commercial trade challenge involving Quebec-based Bombardier.

The public rebuke prompted Boeing to scrap the planned unveiling of its Canadian industry partners for the Super Hornet program Thursday morning.

The company cited the "current climate" for the decision.

"It is not the most opportune time to share this good news story," said Boeing spokesman Scott Day in a statement, issued shorty before the briefing was to take place at an Ottawa defence industry trade show.

Trade complaint

Boeing has been engaged in a very public battle with Canada's Bombardier. The U.S. aircraft maker wants trade regulators in Washington to investigate subsidies for Bombardier's CSeries aircraft, claiming they allow the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.

On Wednesday, Sajjan called on Boeing to halt its trade complaint against Bombardier.

He also upped the ante in the Liberal government's threat to cancel the planned sole-source purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets by suggesting there were alternatives to the interim procurement.

"The interim fleet procurement requires a trusted industry partner," Sajjan said. "Our government is of the view their action against Bombardier is unfounded. It is not the behaviour we expect of a trusted partner, and we call on Boeing to withdraw it."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his speech Wednesday at CANSEC to blast Boeing for its trade complaint against Quebec-based rival Bombardier. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

MacKinnon kept the pressure up on Thursday.

"We certainly hope they'll reconsider their recent actions, which are not friendly and not in Canada's interests," he said. 

Sajjan's office refused to comment on the matter Thursday.

"Minister Sajjan's comments [Wednesday] speak for themselves and we do not have anything to add," Jordan Owens, the minister's spokesperson, said in an email.

Canada had announced plans to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets as a stopgap measure to beef up its legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter jets, which were also produced by Boeing. Sajjan said at the time Canada didn't have enough jets to meet its Norad and NATO obligations.

Boeing's commitment to Canada "has been, and remains, unwavering," Day said on Thursday.

The company's operations in Canada account for 14 per cent of the country's aerospace industry. That includes 560 companies that provide parts to Boeing commercial airplanes and 2,000 company workers in the country.

"Boeing has provided reliable solutions to Canada's defence and security needs, and we respect the mutual trust we have established with the Canadian Armed Forces through the successful execution of several key programs, including the CF-188 Hornet, CC-177 Globemaster III and CH-147 Chinook," Day said.
 

[Guest]

Talks ‘suspended’ on Super Hornet jets

 

• Calgary Herald
• 2 Jun 2017
•  

Canada is no longer talking to Boeing about purchasing 18 Super Hornets to replace some of its aging CF-18 jet fighters — at least for now.

But a day after Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan suggested Boeing could no longer be considered a trusted partner, the government appeared to be playing coy about what its exact intentions were.

On Thursday, Steve MacKinnon, the parliamentary secretary for Procurement Minister Judy Foote, said the government had “suspended” talks with Boeing about its plan to purchase 18 Super Hornets.

Reuters reported that MacKinnon said Boeing “is not acting like a valued partner right now so we’ve suspended discussions with that partner.”

Minutes later, Foote spokeswoman Annie Trepanier said that while government ministers were not talking to the company, “there is no formal suspension.” MacKinnon was simply using the word “suspension” as “an expression,” said a spokesperson in Foote’s office.

The government said it was also not talking to other companies about replacing the CF-18. It also said it is disappointed that Boeing has petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate subsidies for Bombardier’s CSeries aircraft that it says have allowed the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.

Earlier Thursday, Boeing postponed an announcement that was to be made about the jets at an Ottawa defence show.

“Due to the current climate, today is not the most opportune time to share this good news story,” Boeing noted in a statement.

But it added, “Boeing’s commitment to Canada has been, and remains, unwavering.”

On Wednesday, Sajjan slammed Boeing in a speech to defence industry representatives at the show because of the investigations into Bombardier.

“It is not the behaviour of a trusted partner,” Sajjan told industry representatives Wednesday at the CANSEC defence trade show in Ottawa. He called on Boeing to withdraw its complaint.

Although Sajjan stopped short of cancelling the Liberal government’s plan to purchase the Super Hornet fighters from Boeing, Sajjan said the U.S. firm has damaged its relationship with Canada.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland also recently chastened Boeing for its actions. But Sajjan’s dressing down of the company in such a high profile forum is considered by industry representatives as unprecedented. The Liberals are now reviewing the Super Hornet jet proposal and whether it should continue.

The Super Hornet purchase, if it proceeds, is expected to cost $5 billion to $7 billion.

Canada has not yet signed the deal to acquire the Super Hornets. That was expected to be in place by the end of the year or early next year.

Other aerospace firms are in the wings ready to offer Canada new aircraft, including Lockheed Martin with its F-35 fighter jet.

[Maverick]

 

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/

[Guest]

main problem with their promised expenditures  ismost are timed to start well after the next election, in other words "trust us the cheque is in the mail" 

[DEFCON]

Does anyone believe 100 year old Sea Kings will still be in service in 2065?

In my opinion, if the defense of the Country means anything, the evidence says it's time to put the F-35 production program on ice, but maybe continue to support developmental flight testing and five years, or so down the road when the technology is mature and reliable, the US could bring the aircraft back into production and Canada could reconsider it at that date. All things being equal, the aircraft should still represent the technological leading edge. In the meantime, Canada should get on with the E/F Hornet program to fill the void and actually move the politically charged procurement process forward.

It's painful to have to go through all this expensive bs when we had the Arrow, not to mention the first jet passenger transport, which together positioned Canada as the recognized aviation industry world leader ... by far.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

 

US & Canada

 

 

US & Canada

 

US F-35 fighter jets grounded over pilot oxygen supplies

• 3 hours ago

• These are external links and will open in a new window

The US Air Force has grounded a fleet of F-35 fighter jets indefinitely over concerns over pilots' oxygen supplies, according to a spokesman.

F-35 air operations were paused at an Arizona air base after pilots suffered symptoms resembling hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, Captain Mark Graff said.

Lockheed Martin, which built the jet, said it still plans to show the plane at the Paris Air Show this month.

Air Force officials said F-35 fighter jets at other bases were still in use.

Luke Air Force Base, located northwest of Phoenix, cancelled local flying operations for its F-35A Lightning II aircraft on Friday after five incidents were reported in which pilots experienced hypoxia-like symptoms.

But they continued to be grounded on Monday as the Air Force investigated the issue with pilots, maintenance workers and medical professionals, according to base spokeswoman Major Rebecca Heyse.

The incidents took place between 2 May and Thursday, but in each case the jet's backup oxygen system was successful and the aircraft landed safely.

Luke Air Force Base has 55 F-35A Lightning II jets in operation and conducts 25 training flights each weekday, according to base officials.

More than 220 operational F-35 jets have been built worldwide. The stealthy jets have logged more than 95,000 flight hours, but the planes have yet to see combat.

[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

 

 

 

[Maverick]

http://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLICommentary_June2017_SurveyF_webready.pdf

 

Quite long read so I didn't post the text. Very interesting though!