IS THE FWSAR SEARCH NEARLY OVER?

CC-115 Buffalo

If an individual ever had doubts about just how bewildering Canada's military procurement methods are, look no further than the efforts to replace its fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) fleet.  

Announced in 2004, the FWSAR replacement project has seen countless delays.  Even more frustrating is that none of these delays are caused by technical issues.  Instead, the FWSAR has been a victim of politics and bureaucracy gumming up what should have been a straight-forward project.

The need is there to replace Canada's aging CC-115 Buffalo.  The 60s era airframe has not been built since 1986.  Parts are increasingly difficult to procure and maintenance is a challenge.  

Cost is not an issue.  Compared to the $9 billion CF-18 replacement and the $38 billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), the $3.1 billion (service contract included) FWSAR project is unlikely to raise any objections.  

Politically, moving forward with the FWSAR would seem like a non-issue.  Canadian recognize the need for an effective search-and-rescue force, what with our vast coastlines and northern wilderness.  

Despite the need, the acceptable cost, and political will to find a new FWSAR, the project has dragged on for over a decade.  So why the hold-up?

Bureaucracy and politics. 

CC-130H

Things may have gone easier if the DND was merely replacing the CC-115 Buffalo.  Instead the FWSAR project is tasked with replacing TWO different aircraft.  On the east coast, the RCAF conducts FWSAR operations using the CC-130H Hercules.  These Hercs are also tasked with strategic transport when needed.  

Needless to say, the Buff and the Herc have different capabilities.  The Buffalo is an exemplary STOL aircraft, and heralded for its ability to fly in amongst the Rocky Mountains.  The Hercules is much larger, offers a pressurized cabin, has a farther range, and flies much faster.  While it may not be able to put the "Mark One Eyeball" as close to the ground as a Buffalo, this deficiency can easily be made up for using modern imaging devices, like FLIR and ground mapping radar.

If the DND merely ordered a few short CC-130Js for the FWSAR task when it ordered its current batch of CC-130J "Super Hercs", it would have likely raised few eyebrows.  After all, we would simply be upgrading our current fleet of FWSAR Hercs as well as replacing the CC-115 Buffalo.

Instead, the newly elected Conservative government decided to sole-source the Alenia C-27J Spartan.

C-27J Spartan

The reasoning is sound.  The C-27J utilizes the same Rolls-Royce AE2100 turboprop engines as the C-130J, as well as other systems.  The C-27J is often referred to as the "Baby Herc", and for good reason.

The Defence Minister at the time, Peter MacKay, was roundly criticized for the decision to sole-source the C-27J.  Even if the Spartan was an acceptable choice, that was no excuse to disqualify competing bids.  Other aircraft, such as the EADS-CASA (now Airbus Military) C-295, Lockheed Martin C-130J, and even the Bombardier Q400 and Boing V-22 Osprey were worth consideration at least.  Not only that, but sole-sourcing the Italian built C-27J offered little economic benefit to the Canadian aerospace industry.

When the DND went back to the drawing board, it came back with a Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR).  CASA-EADS then accused the DND of writing the SOR with the C-27J specifically in mind.  One of the rumored "requirements" was the ability to transport a spare propellor, a dubious need for a aircraft focused on search-and-rescue.  

Back to the drawing board again.

Airbus Military C-295

The good news in all this is that the most recent statement of requirements allow some flexibility in the competitors' bids.  Manufacturers have been given the option to suggest how many aircraft and where those aircraft should be based.  This extra flexibility allows for the slower (but cheaper) C-295 to meet the requirements by having more aircraft based at more airbases.  

This new-found flexibility may prove to be a boon if it carries over to other procurements.  The CF-18 replacement project, for example, has been criticized for attempting to replace Canada's current fleet of 79 Hornets with only 65 fighters.  Any manufacturer able to deliver more airframes for the same cost should certainly be given extra consideration.

Embraer KC-390

Another silver lining to the cloud surrounding Canada's FWSAR replacement is the inclusion of a contender that did not even exist when the project was first launched.  

Brazilian Embraer has proposed its new KC-390 to compete with the C-27J and C-295.  A definite outlier in the program, the KC-390 uses turbofans instead of turboprops.  It also happens to the largest entry, much larger than the C-295 and C-27J.  The KC-390 is even bigger than the (standard fuselage) C-130.  

It's big.

That extra size gives the KC-390 some advantages.  It flies faster, further, and higher than the others while offering a substantially higher payload (over double!).  The KC-390 has also been designed with the aerial tanker role in mind, capable of refueling fast fighters or slow helicopters.

All that extra size and versatility may be overkill for the FWSAR bid, as the RCAF already has sufficient transports and tankers (although the CC-150 Polaris is getting on in years...).

V-22 Osprey

 The FWSAR project is interesting not just for who bid, but for who did not.

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey was briefly considered, but was ultimately a no-show.  With its troubled development is now mostly behind it, Bell-Boeing are now after sales outside the USA.  Unfortunately, the Osprey is still quite pricy.  It is also slower and has less range than the others.  

The Bombardier Q400 (aka the Dash 8) was proposed, but lacks the rear loading ramp required by the RCAF.  Modifying the Q400 with a ramp would likely be far too risky an undertaking.  

Viking Air Limited proposed "new build" Buffalos with updated engines and avionics.  Known as the DHC-5NG.  Like the Q400, this would have been an attractive option for economic benefits, but entails a fair amount of risk and Canada would once again be stuck with an "orphan" aircraft with no international support (i.e. CH-148 Cyclone).  

The biggest news was Lockheed Martin declining to bid on Canada's FWSAR.

Canada has long been a user of the C-130, both for transport and search-and-rescue.  As stated before, upgrading from the C-130H to the C-130J would have been a painless endeavor.  If Lockheed Martin did decide to bid, it would have a huge advantage of pre-existing infrastructure (simulators, training, supply lines, etc).

So why skip out?

Some say that Lockheed Martin stepped out of the FWSAR bid as "punishment" for Canada abandoning the F-35 program.  This is highly suspect, as Canada has yet to officially back out.  Not only that, but Lockheed Martin seemed ambivalent back in May of 2015, before the current Liberal government was elected or even before they made the campaign promise to cancel the JSF.  Not only that, but "punishing" a potential client for not buying your product would be a disastrous business decision.  Doing so would scare off a lot of potential buyers in the future.  

A more likely explanation is that Lockheed Martin simply did not consider Canada's FWSAR worth the effort.

Even with all the Herc's advantages, it is still an expensive aircraft.  At about $100 million per unit cost and a (USAF) $14,000 cost per flight hour, the Herc may not have been economically viable.  The fact that Lockheed Martin's waning interest occurred roughly at the same time as Embraer entered the scene seems to support this, as the KC-390 was designed specifically to undercut the C-130's price.  

Given the demand for C-130Js worldwide, one wonders if Lockheed Martin could have even fulfilled an order in a timely fashion.  

Big shoes to fill.

Of the remaining three, which aircraft is best suited to fill the FWSAR role?

The Buff and the Herc are two extremely capable aircraft, and finding an aircraft to replace both is daunting to say the least.  All three competitors offer distinct advantages over the others.

C-27 SPARTAN

• Still the odds on favorite.
• Commonality with the Super Herc.
• Better range and speed than the C-295
• Seemingly hits the "sweet spot" of size and capabilities.

C-295

• Cheapest of the three.
• May be stationed in more bases with higher numbers.
• Lightest of the three.

KC-390

• Most versatile.
• Fastest, longest range, heaviest payload.
• May be considered "overkill".
• Early in development with plenty of questions regarding price and reliability.

Obviously, the dark horse here is the Embraer KC-390.  No details have been released regarding its bid, but considering this could be seen as a major "conquest" sale against the C-130, expect it to be aggressive.  

This will likely be the first military purchase of the new Liberal government and certainly "one to watch".  Given Canada's current financial straits combined with our military's desperate need for new equipment, the FWSAR selection is likely to set the tone for much bigger projects on the horizon.  

Let us hope those bigger projects are forthcoming soon.  

Published: By: Unknown - 6:44 AM

PLAYING FAVORITES [RANT]

"Mine is so much better than yours!"

The CF-18, the F-15, the F-4, the F-16...  All of these aircraft could have been described as my "favorite" at one point in time in my adolescent years.  My preference usually coincided with whatever model kit I was building that month.  My reasoning was usually simple; this one looks cooler, this one flies faster, etc.  My fellow base-brat friends and I would argue over which fighter was better, always ending in a stalemate.

As I got older, my love affair with military aircraft dwindled as I became more obsessed with sports cars.  Zero-to-sixty times seemed more tangible to someone who just earned his driver's license.

If my new-found interest in automobiles was not enough, my passion for fighter aircraft drifted even more after watching coverage of the first Gulf War.  Instead of seeing the tense dogfights similar to those in Top Gun or Iron Eagle, I was subjected to black-and-white footage of smart bombs reducing bunkers to smoke....  Not exactly thrilling.

In the 90s, with the Cold War over and the Gulf War proving to be a completely one-sided affair, fighter aircraft development became positively boring.  The F-22 Raptor was taking forever to see active service.  The B-2 was a shining example of how military spending was out of control.  The three "eurocanards" (Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen) were having similar issues.

The only real bright spot were the two programs studying the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF), and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST).  These two similar programs were amalgamated into what is now known as the Joint Strike Fighter program.

For a time, I was quite optimistic about the JSF.  Unfortunately, the JSF morphed into what is now a fighter that is far from "affordable" or "lightweight".  It has now earned its place as one of the most controversial aircraft ever built.

The last few years have been hard on F-35 fans.  Not only has its development been plagued with delays, it has also gotten the wrong type of attention from mainstream media sources.  It has enough of an image problem that the current Canadian government made it an election issue.

While I do have sympathy for F-35 supporters and those whom rely on the program, I have no sympathy for the aircraft itself.  It is, after all, an inanimate object.  In the grand scheme of things, I feel more of a connection to my snowblower.

"Hello gorgeous..."  

There are however, some that are more passionate about fighter aircraft.  They pound their fists on tables, shout down anyone who dares disagree with them, or write angry blog comments IN ALL CAPS.

Why?

It may seem hypocritical for me to question someone's passion for fighter jets, after all, I have spent countless hours blogging and Facebooking about the very subject.  Then again, my government did not announce the $46 billion purchase of high-end snowblowers, either.  Something tells me bestsnowblower4canada wouldn't have gotten the same attention.

When I started Gripen4Canada, I did not choose the Gripen lightly.  I do not think its the prettiest (that would be the Rafale) or the most capable (that would be the Typhoon).  Saab did not pay me a bunch of money, nor do I have an obsession with all things Swedish (I didn't step into an IKEA until I was already a man).  No.  I supported the Gripen using the same reasoning one would use in buying a snowblower.  Reliability, cost, and ability to get the job done.  Sure, there are other fighters (and snowblowers) with cool features you might not find on others, but that extra complexity comes at a cost.

Just because I think the Gripen would be the best choice does not mean I think the other fighters are abysmal.  All of them have their strong points...  Even the F-35.

One could argue the merits of each fighter down the very last detail...  One might even convince a few others change their minds.  Ultimately though, determining Canada's next fighter is not for us to decide.  Hopefully, that decision will be done by fully qualified and educated people who will have access to information us armchair admirals only dream about.

It will not be an easy decision.

The process of picking Canada's next fighter will not be as simple as selecting the fastest or the prettiest.  The actual choice will have to balance the right amount of:

• speed
• maneuverability
• stealth
• mission availability
• sensor capability
• mission flexibility
• short-term procurement cost
• long-term operation cost
• reliability
• industrial offsets
• range
• payload
• contractor support
• etc...
• etc...

Even if the separate bids offered aircraft of identical performance and price, there would still be plenty of discrepancy in maintenance packages, financing arrangements, and other "unsexy" matters.  Think of it (again) like buying a snowblower.  Even if the dealer has the exact make and model you desire, it may not be possible to arrange the right financing (32.9% APR?  Are you kidding me?) or delivery date ("May 16th? the snow will be gone by then!").

In the end, arguing about which fighter is best for is a pointless endeavor anyway.  Any of the fighters being considered (even the F-35) should be more than sufficient, so long as they are purchased in enough numbers and receive ongoing support throughout their lifespan.  Some might be better than others, but not to the point that it is worth arguing about.  

So instead of freaking out about which fighter is best, let us just enjoy the discussion...  Okay?

Published: By: Unknown - 12:51 PM

I'M BACK! SORT OF...

Three months have passed since I last posted on this blog. (Has it been that long?) The time has come to return to the fray.

Shortly before my self-imposed exile, the Liberal Party of Canada took over as the ruling government of Canada.  Part of their election platform was to cancel the purchase of 65 F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters and instead "launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s".

Since then, we have not heard much else.

Sure, the government has set up a new office to run the "Future Fighter Capability" project, but so far there has been no information regarding what aircraft will be considered or whether or not the JSF will be given a second chance. (It very well might be...)

So...  Really...  We are not too far away from where we left off.  As usual, we will simply have to wait.

In the meantime, there is still plenty to talk about.  The fixed-wing search and rescue bids are in, with a notable exception.  There is also the upcoming Federal Budget, which should give a good first impression as to the current Trudeau government's plans for the Canadian military.

Until such time as a fighter competition is announced, my posting will likely be sporadic at best.  With any luck, I hope to post at least once a week, maybe more...  Maybe less.  I will also be browsing the comment section, just be sure to keep it civil.

Thanks for being patient during my absence!




Published: By: Unknown - 12:57 PM

So... Now what?

We've done the impossible...  And that makes us mighty.

-Captain Malcom Reynolds (Firefly) 

The people of Canada spoke loud and clear last night.  

After a record long campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada emerged victorious as the new government-elect.  One of the highlights of their platform was to "immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.”  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has gone on the record stating that the F-35's “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada, and the funds saved by going with a more affordable aircraft would be used to shore up Canada's already-troubled National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).

Canada's election results are already sending a ripple throughout the Joint Strike Fighter program.  If the LPC keeps its promise, we will be the first major JSF partner to walk away from the program.  This could give other potential F-35 buyers second thoughts.  The JSF's laundry list of issues and increasing costs certainly will not help matters.

Time to bail.

So where does that leave us?

From the first time I put virtual pen-to-paper at Gripen for Canada, my intent was always for Canada to take a sober, second look at its JSF purchase.  The F-35 does not seem to meet Canada's strategic needs, nor its financial capabilities.  

With the JSF now out effectively  out of the picture, attention will now focus on the other options.  

The Boeing Super Hornet is still the odds-on favorite, but it would be foolish to discount the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.  Both "eurocanards" have done fairly well in export sales lately.

Saab has mentioned that it would re-evaluate its participation based on Canada's requirements.  With the F-35 gone and a renewed focus on affordability, the Saab Gripen would seem to be an extremely attractive option.  

There still might be a "Gripen 4 Canada".

As for me...  The time has come for me to take a break from blogging for a while.  

It will likely be a few months before any "open and transparent" fighter competition is announced.  This sits just well with me...  I'm exhausted.  I will use this time to take a step back and regather my wits.  (The upcoming release of Fallout 4 may or may not have something to do with this decision.)

In a few days, I will be disabling the comment section.  While I welcome the discussion, I simply do not have time to moderate the hundreds of daily comments.  This will not mean the end of discussion however.

I will continue to participate and post at the two Facebook groups Best Fighter for Canada and Gripen for Canada.  All are welcome to join the discussion.  The groups are closed simply to cut out spam posts, any request to join is usually accepted within an hour.  Please join us if you have not already.

Hopefully, if and when a competition is announced, I will return here and re-open the comment section.

Until then, I want to thank you all for your readership, comments, and your page clicks.  This blog has become far more successful than I ever could have imagined...  And I owe it all to you.  Thanks to you, we have made Canada's next fighter purchase a priority to the incoming government.  

I hope to see you again soon.  Until then... 

Published: By: Unknown - 10:25 AM

VOTE!

On October 19th, you and I will get to have our ultimate say, not just about the CF-18 replacement, but about our nation as a whole.

As always, I encourage you to vote.  I will not tell you which party to vote for, as that is your own personal choice.  For most of you, a political party's stance on fighter jets is not the number one issue facing our country.  It is an issue, however, otherwise you would not be here.

For those who have might have missed it, here are the three major parties' stance on the CF-18 replacement and military procurement in general.  (I will ignore the Green Party and Bloc Quebecois as they have no chance of actually forming government.)

"I once caught a fish this...  Is that person wearing a niqab?"

 While the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) has not come right out and said it, it seems pretty clear that they will continue "business as usual" when it comes to the F-35.  Since 2011, they have vaguely "reset" the process, but have yet to order an open competition.

If anything, the CPC seems to be still very much in favor of the Joint Strike Fighter.  

Oddly enough, the CPC has had the power to order the purchase of the F-35, but has chosen not to going into this election.  This could be due to several reasons.  Either they feared a JSF purchase would hurt their chances in this election, or maybe they have simply waiting for the promised F-35 price reduction to come around.

The CPC's military procurement strategy can be found here.

In it, they promise to increase military spending by $11.8 million over the next 10 years.  That is just over a 50% increase over Canada's current military budget.  The one caveat here is that most of the spending increases will not happen until the 2020s.  That means that the Tories have given themselves at least two more elections (and almost 20 years in office) before they have to make good on their promise.

Mulcair attempts to woo voters with his pirate impression.

The New Democratic Party has pledged to support Canada's military, not only by buying new equipment, but by increasing support towards our veterans, mental health support, and housing.

The NDP have promised to reevaluate Canada's military role, drafting a new Defense White Paper in 2016 with a returned emphasis towards peacekeeping.  They go so far as to pledge Canada as the "top western contributor to peacekeeping.

Unlike the CPC, the NDP have gone on record to say that they will introduce competitive process to replace the CF-18 fleet.

The NDP's military platform can be seen here.

"Wait...  Before we go any further...  How's my hair?"

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) made waves when Justin Trudeau announced that he would scrap Canada's planned F-35 purchase completely.  Instead, the LPC would "immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.  This new fighter would have emphasis on defending North America instead of "stealth first-strike capability".

Instead, the LPC has pledged to use the extra money to support the already troubled National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).  The justification behind this is that 100% of funds going towards the NSPS provide Canadian jobs, while there is no such guarantee with the JSF.

Along with that, the LPC has pledged to match the spending increases promised by the Conservatives.

Of course, politicians are well known for promising one thing, than doing another once in office.  Still, the best we can do as an electorate is hold them accountable.  If a party promises something to get elected, than reneges on that promise, it is our choice to either forgive them or to give the job to someone else.

As I write this, the Liberal Party of Canada has a slight lead, but none of the big three parties is down for the count.  At this point, it seems inevitable that Canada is destined for a minority government...  Possibly even a coalition government.

Clearly, this race is still too close to call.

It is for this very reason that it is important for all of us to be heard.  Although it may not seem like it, very vote counts.  Why?  Because if you don't vote, someone else's vote becomes more powerful.

Your vote is exactly that.  Your choice, your reasons.  Vote for the party with the best military vision.  Vote for the candidate you feel represents your area.  Vote for the party that best aligns with your own beliefs.  Vote for the Prime Minister who you believe has the best hair.  Vote against someone in particular if you want.

Just get out there and vote on October 19th.

The lines may be long, but its worth it.

I'll let Rick Mercer take it from here.

Published: By: Unknown - 3:42 PM

[Rant...] WHY WE WRITE

Don't worry.  This is a one-parter.

It comes around on a seemingly regular basis.

Either here, in the Facebook group, or some other media; someone will spout off that golden nugget that attempts to put a nail through everything I and others like me have tried to do over the last few years.  That nugget reads like the following:

Those close to the F-35 program sing its praises.  Its critics are those who have never flown on it or worked on it.  

It raises an interesting point.

Why trust a random blogger over test pilot who flies the aircraft?  Why trust a scathing aviation reporter when official press releases are saying everything is tickety-boo?  What does it matter to us, anyway?  It isn't as if we will ever fly this airplane.

While it is true that us aviation enthusiasts, bloggers, critics, and other layman are not as "connected" with the program as the pilots, executives, and politicians anchoring their careers to the JSF, there is a very large difference between them and us.  A difference that often goes unnoticed in all the rhetoric.

We are the ones paying for this damn thing.

It is not the military, the government, or the primary contractor (Lockheed Martin in this case) that is the largest stakeholder.  It is the general public, Mr. and Mrs John Q. Taxpayer are the ones picking up the tab.  They are also the ones who will depend on this machinery to defend their freedom.

What Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer are seeing isn't pretty.

They see a massive military project that is hundreds of billions of dollars over budget and years late.  They see an aircraft that is so far underwhelming in performing its intended mission.  They even see an aircraft that could be dangerous to the very people flying it.

The JSF is far from the first military project to blow its timeline and budget.  In fact, missed deadlines and red ink seem to have become acceptable over the years.  So much so that it is actually noteworthy when a project does deliver on-time and under budget.

V-22 Osprey:  Eighteen years in development with a projected cost of $36 billion.

So what makes the F-35 any different?

Simply put, it is a matter of scale.  The JSF is the largest, costliest military procurement project to date.  At almost $1.5 trillion (US), the F-35 makes the $45 billion B-2 bomber project cost seem like a footnote.   It puts the $209 billion space shuttle program to shame.

The massive scale of the F-35 program raises the stakes.  Even minor problems can end up costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.  Bigger problems can cost in the tens, or hundreds of billions.  Worse still, since the JSF is intended to replace the vast majority of the western world's fighter fleet, program delays increase the wear-and-tear on the older fighters it is meant to replace, increasing their operating costs.

Still, would it not be easier for us to simply let those in charge do their job?

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.  Great aircraft...  But why so many?

Well, maybe if we had any faith in those people, but a history of greed and incompetence have made the public wary.

Military procurement is big business.  The world's largest economy (USA) spends the 20% percent of tax revenue on defense.  At about $718 billion in 2011, the USA's defense budget was more than half of Canada's entire gross domestic product (GDP).

Big business and big government spending leads to a "revolving door" where former government and military officials find high-paying work at the very corporations they were once tasked to oversee.  We are assured that everything is on the up-and-up...  But c'mon.

The military-industrial complex has provided us with some real doozies.  A fighter jet isn't just a fighter jet anymore; it's a also a jobs program.  This means that even the most asinine projects are funded well beyond their usefulness.  The C-17 Globemaster III, for instance, has seen its production artificially extended thanks thanks to the whims of US congress rather than the USAF's demand for more cargo aircraft.  As of April of this year, five C-17s remain unsold. 

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle:  Too cramped to be a transport, to slow to be a scout, too fragile to be a tank.

Then there are the worst-case scenarios when bureaucracy conspires to turn a rather straight-forward project into a comedy of errors.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle was meant to provide the US Army with an armored personnel carrier (APC) with enough firepower to defend itself as well as enough speed to keep up with the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT).  Attempts to increase the Bradley's versatility led to a machine that failed to deliver on its primary purpose of delivering troops.  Instead of carrying 11 troops like its predecessor, the M113, the Bradley only carried 6.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle has gone on to see a distinguished career, thanks partially to its bewildering number of variants.  Despite the Bradley's success, it never did work well as a troop carrier.  In fact, the M113, the APC it was meant to replace, still serves as the US Army's predominant troop transport.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle's saga does not end there, however.  Live fire testing was manipulated to provide a more favorable result, replacing its explosive ammunition stores with cans of water.

The story of the Bradley's development was featured in the book The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard.  This was later developed into a movie comedy (what better way to represent military procurement and development) of the same name (The Pentagon Wars).

Here is a clip, explaining the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

The entirety of The Pentagon Wars can be seen here, free on YouTube.  It is well worth the watch.

Many times, those closest to a program are the least likely to criticize it.  Their career may be on the line, or they might just be to closely involved to see the "big picture".

Throughout the years, the military procurement process has been littered with examples of spending run-amok.  When the tax-paying public is being told that "everything is okay", we have reason to be suspicious.  We demand more than slick PR campaigns and condescending platitudes.

We demand tangible results.  

We demand value for our tax dollar.

We demand the truth.

Is that too much to ask? Published: By: Unknown - 3:09 PM

Meanwhile... In the rest of the world.

MORE SOUTH KOREAN SHENANIGANS

KFX concept sketch.

When South Korea announced plans to buy 40 F-35 Lightning IIs last year, part of the justification was that South Korea would have access to technologies to help it build its own indigenous fighter.  That no longer seems to be the case.

The South Korean F-35 acquisition has been controversial at best.  The JSF was first considered too expensive to procure, only for the bidding process to be abandoned and the F-35 chosen anyway.  While both Eurofighter and Boeing were able to get their Typhoon and Silent Eagle bids under the $7.2 billion (US) budget, that same money could only swing 40 F-35s.

It makes you wonder how much further the South Korean deal will be altered.

RISE IN US DOLLAR EQUALS RISE IN F-35 COST

There is a great deal of bluster about how much cheaper the F-35 is getting as it nears full-rate production.  This may or may not be true for the USA, but it is certainly false for the rest of us given the rise in the value of the US dollar.

Over the past 18 months, the US dollar has risen 30%.  This has left foreign F-35 buyers holding the bag, as JSF contracts are paid in American greenbacks.  A 3-4% reduction in production costs pales in comparison.  This leaves committed nations like Norway is the unenviable position of either reducing its order or upping its budget.

For non-commited nations like Canada, currency fluctuations alone may make the aircraft unaffordable.

A strong US economy could very well have a deep impact on foreign F-35 sales.

Thanks Obama.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Elephant...  Republican...   Get it?

This one may seem a little out there to those uninterested in US politics (I don't blame you), but stay with me.

John Boehner's recent resignation as Speaker of the House due to dissent in the Republican party signifies a worrying prospect.  Corporate Republicans are being pushed out in favor of Tea Party Republicans.  This is causing a schism in the GOP,

Tea Party Republicans have been furious over Boehner's insistence on keeping the government running.  Instead, Tea Party members insist that Planned Parenthood be defunded, even if it means shutting down the government to prove their point.  

So why bring this up?

Being an old-school "corporate Republican", Boehner had no issue approving military spending.  He was a champion for the F-35's alternate engine program.  Not only that, but his ouster increases the risk of American military spending cuts and/or government shut-down.  Both of which would have a profound effect on F-35 production.  

The F-35 just lost one of its most powerful allies.  

Published: By: Unknown - 8:26 AM

QOTW: Will procurement policy influence your vote?

I hear they have cookies...

Now that we know where the major political parties stand on the CF-18 replacement, there remains a question as to how much this will effect the election.

While the F-35 issue dominated the headlines for a day or so, it seems to have been eclipsed by the controversy surrounding the niqab.  This shows how fickle the news media and the general public can be.

Myself, I feel strongly enough about Canadian military procurement to factor it into my vote.  It is not the be-all, end-all however.  Other issues, such as health care, senate reform, and marijuana legalization concern me just as much.

As usual, I will be voting for the party that most replicates my own views.  I have never shown particular loyalty to a party in the past, and I still remain (mostly) undecided about this current election.

How important is military procurement in your view?  Will it be a primary factor in your vote?  A consideration?  Or do other issues demand your attention more?


Published: By: Unknown - 10:54 AM

Finally, some clarity on where the parties stand.

Like the F-35?  Better vote Conservative.

Well...  That didn't take long.

Shortly after Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced that his party would scrap the F-35 purchase and hold a competition to replace the CF-18, the other two leaders have (somewhat) clarified their position.

Much like Trudeau, NDP Thomas Mulcair would start a competition.  Unlike the Liberals, the NDP would include the F-35 in the process.  Mulcair took the opportunity to add some campaign rhetoric, slamming Trudeau for disqualifying the F-35.

I will note here that Mulcair and the NDP have (quietly) announced that their position aligns itself with what you will see on this blog.  That is, if the F-35 is to be chosen as replacement for Canada's CF-18s, it should do so based on its own merits and suitability for Canada.

Conservative Party of Canada leader (and current PM) Stephen Harper's response was a little more...  Uh...  Apocalyptic.

Harper lambasted Trudeau's position, implying that pulling out of the JSF program would "crater" Canada's aerospace industry.  This, despite the current Tory government's own on-again/off-again relationship with the F-35.

Stephen Harper's recent statements would seem to confirm what many of us have already suspected:   The Conservatives still intend to buy the F-35.  Doing so prior to the election would have been political suicide given the F-35's recent problems however.  It would seem the last few years after the "reset" has been just a means to put off the decision until it was more politically palatable.

Would abandoning the JSF program jeopardize the Canadian aerospace industry?  Hardly.

At present, JSF-related contracts account for less than 2.3% of the Canadian aerospace industry's current revenue.  While those involved fear the worst, Frank Kendall, the US Secretary of Defense and Acquisition, stated that Canadian firms would not lose work since they offered the "best value".  

Harper's claims would seem to be "A lot of baloney".




Published: By: Unknown - 10:14 AM

Liberals promise to scrap the CF-35.

Finally.

After weeks of pretty much ignoring Canada's current DND procurement woes, a party leader have unequivocally stated their position on Canada's controversial purchase of the F-35 Lightning II.

In a rally held in Halifax today, Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau stated, quite bluntly, that the Grits "will not buy the F-35 fighter jet".

Instead, we will launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s; keeping in mind the primary mission of our fighter aircraft is the defense of North America.  This process will also ensure that bids include guaranteed industrial benefits for Canadian companies and workers.  

 Trudeau then emphasized that saving money on fighter jets would ensure that monies would not be taken away from shipbuilding in places like the Halifax shipyards.

While this news was a long time coming, it is not entirely unexpected.  Kelowna Liberal candidate and former CF-18 pilot Stephen Fuhr has been quite critical of the F-35.

I'm sure the "Tory blue" on the tail didn't help.

Some might find that there is something awfully familiar with a Liberal party leader promising to kibosh a planned military procurement.  In 1993, Jean Chretien promised to cancel the Mulroney government's EH101 purchase.  Calling the EH101 a "Cadillac", he kept his promise shortly after assuming the Prime Minister's office.  Many have considered this to be a bad move, as Canada incurred $150 million in cancellation fees while entering a further quagmire with the CH-148 Cyclone.

There is a substantial difference in this case, however.

Unlike the EH101 at the time of its cancellation, Canada has yet to order a single F-35.  Canada was an early investor in the program however, joining the Joint Strike Fighter Concept Demonstration phase back in 1997.  It should be noted that this was 3 years prior to the X-35's first flight, and well before the "Battle of the X-Planes".

Canada's investment into the JSF program was not done under the auspices to "reserve" aircraft.  Instead, the purpose was to buy into the industrial program.  With anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 aircraft likely to be built, it is easy to see why Canada's government at the time would want a piece of that action.

With no secured orders for Canadian F-35s, Canada would incur no penalty.  Lockheed Martin has stated quite clearly that Canada would lose out on future JSF work, but there is no guarantee Canada would receive any future JSF work in the first place.

Trudeau's speech insisted that any future Canadian fighter "guaranteed industrial benefits for Canadian companies and workers."  This now puts Liberal policy in pretty much exact sync with my views on this blog:  To replace the CF-18 with a fighter that meets the strategic, industrial, and economic needs of Canada.

See you at the polls. Published: By: Unknown - 1:28 PM

Saab and Boeing tease their T-X

"That's it?"

Saab and Boeing have been pretty tight-lipped about their collaborative bid for the USAF's T-X program.  While other bidders have a preference for existing designs, Saab and Boeing have decided on a clean-sheet design that will most definitely not be a variant of the Gripen.

I have speculated on the Saab/Boeing T-X in the past.  So far, nothing seems to confirm or deny my guesstimates.

Saab and Boeing have been tight-lipped about about their upcoming trainer.  So much so that a recent conference display was by invitation only.  Its only release to the general public is the vague shot of the aircraft's nose that you see above.

While all this secrecy is infuriating to aviation buffs, its not entirely unexpected.  Saab and Boeing are taking the T-X competition very seriously and it does not want to give away too much to their competition.  Saab's CEO seems quite confident in the design however, and looks forward to cooperating with Boeing in the future.

Boeing previous T-X concept art.

The released picture does have a passing resemblance to Boeing's previous T-X concept art.  It is missing the leading edge extensions that extend to the the pilot, however.  The real question is what resides just outside the right side of the frame.

Top view of a two-seat Gripen for reference.

The revealed nose actually does resemble that of the two-seat Gripen, but with a "blunted" nose.  This makes sense as a trainer would not need a large nosecone to house a sophisticated radar.

Time will tell what the rest of the aircraft will look like.  Will it be canard-delta design like the Gripen?   A pelikan tail like that pictured in the early Boeing render?

Stay tuned...





Published: By: Unknown - 6:31 AM

Kuwait buys the Typhoon

Eurofighter Typhoon over Dubai.

The nation of Kuwait recently announced plans to purchase 28 Eurofighter Typhoons to serve alongside its existing fleet of F/A-18C/Ds.

This makes Kuwait the third Gulf Co-Operation Council (GCC) member to choose the Typhoon.  Saudi Arabia has starting taking deliveries on 72, while Oman has 12 ordered.  The Eurofighter consortium is still offering the Typhoon to Qatar, but it looks like they have chosen the Rafale.

While the sale of a mere 28 aircraft seems inconsequential given the scale of the larger F-35 program,  it is certainly welcome news after concerns about a concerns about a manufacturing fault.  Successful marketing of the Typhoon, combined with future improvements, promise to keep the Eurofighter relevant for quite some time.

If anything, this deal is a reminder that the Typhoon should be very near the top of the list when considering Canada's successor to the CF-18 Hornet. Published: By: Unknown - 5:01 AM