Canada Buys USED fighters

[st27]

“And the compass only needs to be removed and re-installed inverted to operate in the northern hemisphere. “

its a government job....they’ll have to remove the compass and rotate/invert the airframe around the compass! 

[Maverick]

I believe L3 has also done the fuselage barrel replacement on some of the Australian F-18's so they should have a reasonably good idea of the airframes condition.

[boestar]

3 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

Ummm... A decision WAS made. About 10 years ago. It was un-made about two years ago. And the cycle continues. Kind of like porpoising on landing. And we all know how that turns out.

yes it was Rich BUT was it the right decision for Canada other than being a political one?

 

[dagger]

43 minutes ago, boestar said:

yes it was Rich BUT was it the right decision for Canada other than being a political one?

 

That analysis will have to wait until there is an order for the new aircraft. I'd say the F35 has improved its situation on both technical and cost grounds. Had Canada placed an order fo F35s years ago, we might be having some buyer's remorse. As for the Super Hornet, if the Block III version proceeds to production by then, it's also a better plane than the one Canada might have ordered earlier this year as the interim fix. 

[thinair]

19 hours ago, Critter said:

Trudeau must’ve asked WestJet for aircraft purchase advice...

”Hey Gregg, where do we get planes from?”

”Used Aussie planes can be had for a good price”

Now that's funny! 

[Guest]

 

Andrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics

 

‎Yesterday, ‎December ‎13, ‎2017, ‏‎5:37:03 PM | Andrew Coyne

Let me see if I have this straight. In order to meet an urgent “capability gap” with regard to its aging fleet of fighter jets, the federal government is kicking the competition to produce a replacement jet that it promised two years ago another year into the future. A winner will be chosen no sooner than 2022, five years from now, or a dozen years after the winner of the previous competition was declared. The planes will be delivered in 2025.

In the meantime, as an interim measure, it will upgrade its current fleet of 30-year-old CF-18 Hornets with 18 virtually identical second-hand Australian F-18 Hornets of the same age. This follows its decision to cancel a previous agreement to buy the same number of new F-18 Super Hornets from Boeing, in retaliation for Boeing’s invocation of U.S. trade remedy laws against Canada’s subsidies to Bombardier. The earliest the interim planes will be in the air is the “early 2020s,” leaving perhaps two years before they are mothballed.

Boeing likewise faces effective exclusion from the competition for a long-term replacement for the CF-18s owing to proposed new rules against procuring military equipment from companies who do “economic harm” to Canada. Not excluded from the competition: Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the plane that was first chosen in 2010, but which the incoming Liberal government had promised it would not choose, in the same platform in which it promised to immediately launch an “open and transparent competition.”

The F-35, by the way, is the plane that Australia has chosen to replace its aging F-18s: the one it is now selling to us. It may well be the plane that Canada eventually chooses to replace, er, itself. But that’s not until after the next election, so it hardly counts.

• Dennis Roberts: Buying old F-18 jets is a bad idea. It just makes our existing problem worse
• Canada scraps plan to buy Boeing fighters and will go with used Australian F-18s
• NP View: The Liberals' money-wasting, defence-shirking, politically craven jet circus gets worse

Everything about this whole sorry mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics — or in other words, procurement as usual. The “capability gap” suffers from a pronounced credibility gap: virtually no independent expert agrees it exists, defined as it is by a standard of military readiness — the ability to meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments, simultaneously, in full — that has never been asked of us and is unlikely ever to be.

The cancelling of the Boeing purchase, likewise, while an obvious money-saver — used jets are cheaper — is unprecedented in subordinating the needs of national defence to the prosecution of a private trade dispute. As an attempt at blackmail it is also spectacularly unwise: there is no indication Boeing has any intention of withdrawing its suit, and in any case Canada has an interest, as the smaller party in any dispute with the United States, in maintaining a rules-based approach to its resolution.

But it is the proposed new rules governing military procurement that are the silliest part of this shemozzle. Procurement has long been disfigured by attempts to attach local content requirements, such as the notorious Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITBs), in an attempt to rope international arms manufacturers into the dubious project of propping up the Canadian defence sector.

Or rather, to pretend to. The burden of such disguised subsidies is almost certainly not borne by the contractors, who compete for capital on international markets and can ill afford to hand out freebies. Rather, it is priced into the contracts. As such, it is subject to the same criticism as any other industrial subsidy. The cost is borne not only by the taxpayer and/or the military, but by other sectors of the economy, from whom capital and labour are thereby diverted.

Now the government proposes attaching still another non-military condition to future military purchases, starting with the $19-billion fighter jet contract. The details have yet to be revealed — or, it would seem, written down — but apparently it would involve some sort of test of every competing bidder’s “overall impact on Canada’s economic interests,” assessing their “economic behaviour” in the years prior to the contract being awarded. “Bidders responsible for harming Canada’s economic interests,” the government warns, will be at a “distinct disadvantage.”

The best word for this, other than petulant, is eccentric. No one knows how any of these terms would be defined, still less how this novel approach would square with Canada’s obligations under international trade law. Which types of “behaviour” would be assessed? What sorts of “harm” would count? The prospect is for still further delays and still higher costs as these highly subjective judgments are worked out, with still greater uncertainty the result.

Is Boeing, a major employer in Manitoba, really doing “harm” to Canada by defending itself against alleged unfair trade practices on the part of Bombardier, a major employer in Quebec? A strong argument could be made to the contrary: that by calling out the federal government’s decades-long history of favouring Bombardier, to the tune of billions of public dollars, Boeing is doing Canada an enormous service.

The government may pretend that the economic interests of the country are synonymous with Bombardier’s. But that’s no reason the rest of us have to.

* * *

Correction: In a recent column, I said the first three of 15 frigates to be supplied to the Royal Canadian Navy under a proposal put forward by an Italian-French consortium would be built in Europe, with the rest constructed by Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax. That was part of an earlier plan proposed in 2016 by the Italian partner, Fincantieri; it is not part of the current proposal.

[boestar]

Canada needs to start developing their own military technology.  We have the skills and abilities just not the financial commitment.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, boestar said:

Canada needs to start developing their own military technology.  We have the skills and abilities just not the financial commitment.

 

I agree with your statement but I suspect, without sales to other countries and of course the need to purchase certain (restricted) military items/software for the aircraft, the product would be doomed from the start.

[boestar]

You cant sell a product until you have, at the very least, a concept.  interestingly alot of that "restricted" technology is built right here in Canada along with the software.

 

[Maverick]

18 minutes ago, boestar said:

Canada needs to start developing their own military technology.  We have the skills and abilities just not the financial commitment.

 

Couldn't disagree more. We undoubtedly have the ability but we've never had the kind of leadership to stomach how much it would cost. The Navy boats are a prime example.

What we need is for military procurement to be carried out by the end users. Give them a budget and hold them accountable for the decisions they make.

Develop a new fighter? Why would you do that when there are plenty of options? The Brits would love to sell Canada the Typhoon. It would be a symbolic

post-Brexit win and the industrial offsets they need more than we do. Theresa May needs something to bring to the voters.

[Guest]

Maybe the Libs should take a trip to Kuwait to see how a procurement program works.  Note the type of aircraft that Kuwait is replacing.  Purchase contract was signed in 2016 and the first aircraft are scheduled to arrive in 2019.  Hmmmm 

Eurofighter powers up Typhoon production for Kuwait

• 13 December, 2017
• SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
• BY: Craig Hoyle
• London

Kuwait's future fleet of Typhoons remains on track for introduction from 2019, with the first major parts now in production by the Eurofighter partner companies.

"Production activities have begun, in order to comply with the contract and customer expectations," the Eurofighter consortium says. Kuwait signed for 28 of the multirole type – including six two-seat trainers – in 2016 and Italy's Leonardo is lead partner for the sale.

Detailing the programme's status ahead of the 12-14 December Gulf Defence & Aerospace exhibition in Kuwait, Leonardo said production activities are on track, "and, in some cases, ahead of schedule". This includes current work on wing skins, while "the first rear section fuselage is going to start the 'Stage 2' assembly phase in early 2018", it adds.Eurofighter

Infrastructure work in Kuwait ahead of the new type's arrival is also under way, says Eurofighter, with construction work having commenced in August 2017.

Once operational, the Typhoon will provide a significant increase in capability for the Kuwait air force, which Flight Fleets Analyzer records as currently operating 34 Boeing F/A-18C/Ds, aged between 24 and 26 years.

The service's new type will be fitted with the Euroradar consortium's Captor-E active electronically scanned array radar, Lockheed Martin Sniper targeting pod, plus precision-guided weapons including MBDA's Brimstone air-to-surface missile and Storm Shadow cruise missile.

[Kip Powick]

23 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Couldn't disagree more. We undoubtedly have the ability but we've never had the kind of leadership to stomach how much it would cost. The Navy boats are a prime example.

What we need is for military procurement to be carried out by the end users. Give them a budget and hold them accountable for the decisions they make.

Develop a new fighter? Why would you do that when there are plenty of options? The Brits would love to sell Canada the Typhoon. It would be a symbolic

post-Brexit win and the industrial offsets they need more than we do. Theresa May needs something to bring to the voters.

I could almost agree with that, however the bigger question is why do we need that type of aircraft in Canada?? Who, what are we defending Canada from ?? It took decades for Canada to finally get an aircraft in a "war" (middle East),and the fighting was done by dropping smart bombs from 25-35K feet. The cost of new "fighters" will probably exceed $140,000,000.00 per aircraft and we would need a minimum of 12 for the smallest squadron ...if we only had one squadron and then there are "spares" to consider...

That money could be better spent on Heavy Transport and SAR aircraft and drop the fighter pilot mentality and ego driven acquisition that we "need" fighters in Canada. Time for a reality check by the "brass hats".

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

I could almost agree with that, however the bigger question is why do we need that type of aircraft in Canada?? Who, what are we defending Canada from ?? It took decades for Canada to finally get an aircraft in a "war" (middle East),and the fighting was done by dropping smart bombs from 25-35K feet. The cost of new "fighters" will probably exceed $140,000,000.00 per aircraft and we would need a minimum of 12 for the smallest squadron ...if we only had one squadron and then are "spares" to consider...

That money could be better spent on Heavy Transport and SAR aircraft and drop the fighter pilot mentality and ego driven acquisition that we "need" fighters in Canada. Time for a reality check by the "brass hats".

Right on Kip, let's buy aircraft that fit  the actual needs of our country. Here is a supporting article from the Globe and Mail Jul 2014

CHARLES NIXON

Canada does not need fighter jets, period

CHARLES NIXON

 

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2014 7:36AM EDT

C.R. (Buzz) Nixon was deputy minister of National Defence from 1975 to 1983.

It appears Ottawa has put on hold its decision to purchase next-generation F-35 fighter jets. It should go one step further and junk the purchase of any new fighters, period – saving $45-billion in the process. Canada does not need fighter aircraft.

New Canadian fighters would almost certainly never be involved in serious strike or aerial combat operations and are not required to protect Canada’s populace or sovereignty. They would only be of symbolic assistance (such as Canada currently is doing in Eastern Europe via NATO) and could provide support of ground forces in low-combat hostilities, which could be had more effectively and at lower cost by other types of aircraft.

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat “9/11” attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

Natural disasters at home or abroad would not require fighters, but could require helicopters, transport aircraft and other forms of military assistance.

Canada could be involved in providing humanitarian relief, peace-keeping or to help maintain order and protection of people and property - a type of operation would not likely involve aerial combat, but could require aerial support to ground operations. This type of operation could be provided more effectively and at lower cost than by using fighters.

The more-demanding roles for fighter aircraft – aerial combat and striking – would occur during an intense war involving major powers, which have F-35 or comparable (“Gen 5”) aircraft and also have the economic ability to fully engage in heightened warfare. The only credible foreseeable future situation where that could pertain would be a highly improbable war between the United States and China. Russia is – and will be for decades – a weak economic and military power trying to play a significant role in world affairs, moving gradually closer to the western industrialized nations and not exhibiting a perceptible effort to build up offensive military capabilities. For the foreseeable future, despite current tensions re Ukraine, Russia will not aggressively challenge the United States or its allies, in which case Canada does not need fighters for defence of Western Europe.

In the most unlikely event of war between U.S. and China, it is difficult if not impossible to concoct a credible scenario which would merit Canada providing Gen 5 aircraft.

Fighters simply cannot contribute anything substantial toward the achievement of the six Canadian defence objectives. The best course for the Harper government would be to defer any further decisions on military equipment procurement pending a thorough rethink about Canada’s defence posture.

A rethink should start with a study, analysis and assessment of the foreseeable state and trends of the world and the action of the major nations. It would then be possible, with the perspective such a study should provide, to specify the roles that the Canadian Forces may be called upon to discharge, and therefore indicate the size, organization and equipment that the Forces – land, sea and air – should have for the 21st century. The result would be a report more substantial and specific than the weak and specious out-of-date Canada First Defence Strategy.

 Report Typo/Error

[st27]

Some perspective on military procurement from the previous defence minister:

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-jets-and-vets

[boestar]

why do people continue to say "it's the best" without giving a reasonable statement as to WHY its the best?

 

[conehead]

2 hours ago, boestar said:

why do people continue to say "it's the best" without giving a reasonable statement as to WHY its the best?

 

Because he thinks he’s smarter than everyone, and people should blindly trust him, as he knows best.

[Kip Powick]

And all very troubling to RCAF pilots, technicians and their families. Which is why so many are leaving the service.

Not true...The reason so many "were" leaving the RCAF was strictly monetary.....coupled with the fact that many Military drivers just want to fly airplanes and are not interested in climbing the ladder and have to fly the BOD8D was the fact that the $$$ in the airline industry ALWAYS worked out better than the RCAF ...in the long run. 

That and the ability to retire on a much higher pension sent many to the airlines.....At this time that fact, ($$$), is not entirely true because wages in the airline industry have taken quite a hit.

In 1989 I left the CF making just over 50K and started in the airline industry at 72K with prospects of adding a 15 year airline pension to my gross income. It worked out well and I came very close to layoffs but it did not happen and the only fly in the ointment is that airline pensions (CDN/AC) are not indexed.

Finally, IMO.....when someone, (in high authority), does an actual reality check, they will find that the RCAF does NOT need fighters, ......Canada should be involved in SAR and Heavy Transport only.

 

[Seeker]

8 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

 

Finally, IMO.....when someone, (in high authority), does an actual reality check, they will find that the RCAF does NOT need fighters, ......Canada should be involved in SAR and Heavy Transport only.

 

I would add Coastal Patrol to that list.

[st27]

But Canada is back!!! don't we have NATO committments??

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, st27 said:

But Canada is back!!! don't we have NATO committments??

time to admit we are no longer in the same league as when NATO was formed.  Our armed forces are but a pale shadow of what we had then. In particular the RCAF. In August 1949 Canada joined NATO, and as part of its military commitment established an Air Division (No. 1 Air Division) in Europe consisting of four wings. The first wing to form, No.1 Fighter Wing, was established at North Luffenham, England in 1951, but later moved to Marville, France. Other RCAF wings quickly followed, with bases established at Grostenquin, France; Zweibrücken, West Germany; and Baden-Soellingen, West Germany. Each of these wings consisted of three fighter squadrons. The backbone of RCAF support to NATO's air forces in Europe in the 1950s were the CF-100 and the Sabre. Until 1958 the RCAF also trained aircrew from other NATO countries under the NATO Air Training Plan.

[Kip Powick]

If Trump can cut the USA payments to the UN...we can gracefully do the same with respect to providing "fighters" for NATO

[st27]

Trump will cut us off..at some point, we will need the US...heaven forbid if Rocket Man and the Hairpiece start getting serious. We are in the line of fire so to speak..

[Guest]

2 hours ago, st27 said:

Trump will cut us off..at some point, we will need the US...heaven forbid if Rocket Man and the Hairpiece start getting serious. We are in the line of fire so to speak..

ST27, no matter what we do, we will always be in the line of that fire and offer the best place for the US to knock down any incoming before it crosses into their territory. That was the case in the past and is the same today.

[st27]

I agree, but given Trumps views on countries that don't pull their weight militarily...at least we could make an effort. Trudeaus words fall far short. 

[Guest]

A frustrated Trump criticizes Canada and other NATO allies in letters on defence spending

 

‎Today, ‎July ‎3, ‎2018, ‏‎2 hours ago | The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has written sharply worded letters to the leaders of several NATO allies, including Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada, taking them to task for spending too little on their own defence and warning that the United States is losing patience with what he said was their failure to meet security obligations shared by the alliance.

The letters, sent in June, are the latest sign of acrimony between Trump and U.S. allies as he heads to a NATO summit meeting next week in Brussels. It will be a closely watched test of the president’s commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance after he has repeatedly questioned its value and claimed that its members are taking advantage of the United States.

Trump’s criticism raised the prospect of another confrontation involving the president and U.S. allies after a blowup by Trump at the Group of 7 gathering in June, and increased concerns that far from projecting solidarity in the face of threats from Russia, the meeting will highlight divisions within the alliance. Such a result could play into the hands of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who is to meet with Trump in Helsinki after the NATO meeting, and whose primary goal is sowing divisions within NATO.

A US Army Black Hawk helicopter about to be deployed as part of a nine-month rotation in Operation Atlantic Resolve, which has seen US troops deployed to Europe as part of strengthening NATO.

In his letters, the president hinted that after more than a year of public and private complaints that allies have not done enough to share the burden of collective defence, he may be considering a response, including adjusting the U.S. military presence around the world.

“As we discussed during your visit in April, there is growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised,” Trump wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in a particularly pointed letter, according to someone who saw it and shared excerpts with The New York Times. “The United States continues to devote more resources to the defence of Europe when the continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us.”

“Growing frustration,” Trump wrote, “is not confined to our executive branch. The United States Congress is concerned as well.”

The president’s complaint is that many NATO allies are not living up to the commitment they made at their Wales summit meeting in 2014 to spend 2 per cent of their gross domestic product on national defence. U.S. presidents have long complained about the lack of burden-sharing by NATO member countries, but Trump has taken that criticism much further, claiming that some of the United States’ closest allies are essentially deadbeats who have failed to pay debts to the organization, a fundamental misunderstanding of how it functions.

The Trump administration has already reportedly been analyzing a large-scale withdrawal of U.S. forces from Germany, after Trump expressed surprise that 35,000 active-duty troops are stationed there and complained that NATO countries were not contributing enough to the alliance.

In the letter, Trump told Merkel that Germany also deserves blame for the failure of other NATO countries to spend enough: “Continued German underspending on defence undermines the security of the alliance and provides validation for other allies that also do not plan to meet their military spending commitments, because others see you as a role model.”

In language that is echoed in his letters to the leaders of other countries, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway and Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium, Trump said he understands the “domestic political pressure” brought to bear by opponents of boosting military expenditures, noting that he has expended “considerable political capital to increase our own military spending.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in his office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, April 4, 2018.

“It will, however, become increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security burden while American soldiers continue to sacrifice their lives overseas or come home gravely wounded,” Trump wrote to Merkel.

Michel reacted tartly to the letter this past week, telling reporters at a European Union summit meeting in Brussels that he was “not very impressed” by it, according to a report by Deutsche Welle.

Trump has long complained about NATO and routinely grouses that the United States is treated shabbily by multilateral organizations of which it is a member, be it the World Trade Organization or the North Atlantic alliance. But in Europe, the letters to NATO allies have been greeted with some degree of alarm because of their suggestion that Trump is prepared to impose consequences on the allies — as he has done in an escalating tariff fight with European trading partners — if they do not do what he is asking.

“Trump still seems to think that NATO is like a club that you owe dues to, or some sort of protection racket where the U.S. is doing all the work protecting all these deadbeat Europeans while they’re sitting around on vacation, and now he is suggesting there are consequences,” said Derek Chollet, a former Defense Department official who is the executive vice president for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“Europeans have been watching Donald Trump begin to implement his rhetoric on trade in ways that are very combative, and they’re starting to contemplate whether he would do this regarding security issues as well,” Chollet added.

Trump’s letter to Trudeau was reported in June by iPolitics in Canada, and the existence of others was reported this past week by Foreign Policy. It was not clear precisely how many Trump wrote, and the White House would not comment on presidential correspondence. But two diplomatic sources said they believed at least a dozen were sent, including to Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the matter, said that Trump is committed to the NATO alliance and expects allies to shoulder “their fair share of our common defence burden, and to do more in areas that most affect them.”

Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel speaks to journalists on June 29, 2018.

John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, said Sunday that it was NATO members who refused to spend more on defence — not the president — who were responsible for undercutting the alliance.

“The president wants a strong NATO,” Bolton said in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “If you think Russia’s a threat, ask yourself this question: Why is Germany spending less than 1.2 percent of its GNP? When people talk about undermining the NATO alliance, you should look at those who are carrying out steps that make NATO less effective militarily.”

But for diplomats hoping fervently to avoid another high-profile summit meeting collapse with Trump as the instigator, the letters were concerning.

“Europeans, like many folks in our Defense Department, think that there are many good things that could come out of this summit if only they can keep it from going off the rails,” Chollet said. “They are hoping to survive without irreparable damage, and so the fact that you have all these storm clouds surrounding NATO and Trump is really worrisome.”

Trump’s disparagement of Europe and NATO has become almost routine, leaving some veteran diplomats aghast. Last week, Jim Melville, the U.S. ambassador to Estonia, told friends and colleagues that he would resign at the end of this month after more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, in part because of the president’s language.

“For the President to say the EU was ‘set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank,’ or that ‘NATO is as bad as NAFTA’ is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it’s time to go,” Melville wrote in a Facebook post. He was referring to remarks about Europe that the president made during a rally Wednesday in Fargo, North Dakota, and comments about NATO that he is reported to have made privately during the Group of 7 gathering in June.

Still, the president is not alone in demanding more robust military spending by NATO allies.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote to British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson in June saying he was “concerned” that the United Kingdom’s military strength was “at risk of erosion” if it did not increase spending, and warned that France could eclipse Britain as the United States’ “partner of choice” if it did not invest more. A Defense Department official confirmed the contents of Mattis’ letter, first reported by The Sun.