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

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

QOTW: Which political party will be best for Canada's military?

'Ugh..."

A whopping 79% of you believe that Canada would be much better off with a "good enough" fighter provided in greater numbers than a flagship model.  Since Canada would not be expected to do the heavy lifting in any armed conflict, this would seem to make the most sense.  (In other words, let the other nations blow their wallets on fancy toys!)

Seeing as how we now in the midst of an (extended) election campaign, it is now time to ask the obvious question:  Which political party is best for Canada's military?

I have asked the question before (just not in poll form).  Since that time, none of the major political parties have gone into much detail on how they would fix the DND's current procurement woes.

While all the parties have released generalized statements that they will support Canada's military as well as our veterans, they are so far silent on what they will do to replace aging equipment in a timely and affordable fashion.

Why is this not an issue?

More is being said about hairstyles and questionable airline food than our nation's lack of replenishment ships.  More ink is devoted to a $90,000 housing allowance than the $46 billion+ it would cost Canada to purchase the F-35.

Do Canadians simply not care about our military, and those who serve in it?  Perhaps we should be making this more of an issue.  When your local MP candidate comes knocking at your door, take a few minutes to ask him or her about where they and their party stands.  DO NOT be satisfied with platitudes.  Ask for specifics.

• "Will your party support a fair and open competition to replace the CF-18?"

• "Is your party committed to increasing military spending in order to more closely align with the 2% of GDP suggested by NATO?

• "What is your party's stance on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy?"

• "How will your party support our veterans, now and in the future?"

Published: By: Unknown - 6:36 AM

Election 2015: Will any of the parties make military procurement a priority?

Ugh...

The 2015 election season is slowly meandering forth from its cave, hungry and looking for sustenance.  Canada's three major federal parties have slowly started revealing their platforms for the upcoming election.  To no one's surprise, military spending has yet to garner any attention.

Diving into each of these parties' websites reveals very little into how much attention they would pay to Canada's long neglected military.

The Tories:

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) makes little mention of its plans for Canada's defense on its website.  It does, however, spend an entire page on "Keeping our Streets and Communities Safe".  Apparently, the CPC is more concerned about an attack from within.

If one digs around, the following blurb is found:

By rebuilding our Canadian Forces and adopting a new, values-based foreign policy, the Government is protecting Canada’s sovereignty and advancing our national interests on the world stage. Guided by our foundational values – freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, Canada is now asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic, pursuing new international free trade agreements and strengthening our contributions to global security, most notably through the mission in Afghanistan.

I am not exactly sure what a "values-based foreign policy" is, nor am I sure exactly how Canada has been asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic.  Russia has made itself much more clear in that department.

One can make the argument that the CPC can simply rest on its pro-defense reputation.  It would be a poor argument, however.  Since coming to power over nine years ago, the CPC has continued to cut procurement spending.  It does promise, however to boost spending in 2017 (if re-elected).

Looking at the CPC's last nine years in government, it seems that the governing Tories are all-hat and no-cattle.  Flashy press conferences are held announcing this-or-that, but when it comes time to sign a cheque, things are put off indefinitely...  Again and again.  There have been a few bright spots, like the acquisition of several C-17 Globemaster IIIs, but this seems to be more of an exception, not the rule.

There is also that slight problem of cutting veterans' benefits...  While spending more on parades meant to honor them.

The Liberals:

The Liberal Party of Canada makes it very clear:  They do not like the way the Harper government has handled things.  Some very prominent members of the party, like Marc Garneau and Stephen Fuhr, are outspoken critics of the F-35.  When it comes to their own policy, thing become a little more muddled, however.

The LPC's "Foreign Affairs & Defense" page is prominent on their website, but makes little mention about procurement strategy.  It does mention veterans, however:

Liberals will ensure that no veteran will have to fight the government for the treatment and compensation they have earned by putting their lives on the line for this country.

We commit to re-opening the 9 Veterans Affairs Service Offices closed by the Conservative government.

The LPC may wish to define their commitment to military spending a little more, since their reputation in that regard has been tarnished by the "Decade of Darkness" that defined the Department of National Defense during the Chretien government.  In an effort to balance the federal government, the DND's budget was slashed and purchases cancelled.  This penny-pinching attitudeled to purchases like the Upholder/Victoria-class submarines, not exactly a high point in DND procurement history.

Oddly enough, it was not the election of a new government that ended the "Decade of Darkness", merely a new leader.  It was the same Liberal government under Paul Martin that raised military spending, albeit slightly.  It also selected the CH-148 Cyclone to replace the venerable Sea King helicopters.  (Wonder how that turned out?)

There is also the fact that much of Canada's current military hardware, (CF-18s, CP-140s, Halifax-class frigates, etc.) were purchased during the time of Pierre Trudeau.  Then again, this was during the height of the Cold War, when high military spending was all the rage.

The New Democratic Party

Oddly enough, the NDP's stance on military funding is emphasized on their website in far greater detail than other other major Canadian political party.  Almost two full pages of their "policy book" (available here, look for section 4.6 on page 19) are dedicated to it.  

While the majority is dedicated to veterans and their rights and privileges, there is some mention of keeping hardware up to date, specifically:

1. Ensuring our armed forces are well-equipped with the necessary human and material resources for their operations. 

Given that the NDP have never formed a federal government, there is no way to judge them on past performance.  While there does seem to be a tendency to view them as "granola-eating-hippies", there seems to be little evidence to support or deny their support for the military.

So which party is best for Canada's military?

Damned if I know.

To put it frankly, like many Canadians, my vote will be for the party that best represents my own personal views on a number of issues.  I do place Canada's defense high on that priority list, but right now there seems to be very little to differentiate the parties in that department.

As the election season ramps up, that is very likely to change.  When it does, I will try to report on it here.

I know politics can be messy, and I will do my best to remove my own personal bias...  At least until the end.

Published: By: Unknown - 4:52 PM

Israel buys 14 more F-35s... With American money, of course.

Not a bad deal when you get to spend someone else's money.

In a move that should surprise nobody, Israel has announced that it intends to buy a few more F-35s to add to the 19 it initially ordered in 2010.

The newest order provides for a minimum of 14 F-35s, with an option to order up to 17 more.

The Israeli order is interesting for several reasons:

First is the fact that those F-35s are completely funded by the American taxpayer.  Not directly, of course, but the USA doles out approximately $3 billion worth of military aid to Israel annually.  That $3 billion also just so happens to be the cost of those 14 shiny new F-35s.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

The second reason the Israeli JSF buy is interesting is due to the fact that Israel, while putting very little investment into the program, seems be reaping plenty of benefits.  As a "Security Cooperative Participant", Israel would be below "Level 3" partners like Canada or Denmark.  Despite this relatively low tier status, Israel's first F-35 purchase came with industrial offsets of $4 billion or more (despite the purchase being completely covered under US military aid).  Meanwhile, higher tier partners like (Level 2) Australia will be lucky if they break even on the deal.

If all this was not enough to raise eyebrows, Israel will receive its own unique F-35 variant, designated the F-35I.  These will have different Electronic Warfare suites and Israel will have the ability to equip whatever weapons it sees fit.  This is unique amongst JSF users, who would otherwise be restricted due to the F-35's closed system.

IAF F-15I Ra'am

So why does Israel get such a deal?

At the risk of getting political, Israel is a very special case.  It a staunch American ally in part of the world that is not alway U.S. friendly.  This makes it an invaluable strategic asset in the Middle-East.  Israel itself has a volatile relationship with many of its neighbors, making its military a top priority.  Were it not for U.S. military aid, Israel could very well have been overrun years ago.

Another factor is Israel has one of the best air forces in the world.  A lot of what we know about modern fighter jet combat is a direct result of IAF experiences throughout the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War.  Because of this, the IAF has a definite understanding of what works and what does not. They also have little margin for error.  It is therefore understandable why they would insist on their own, proven equipment.

That would explain why Israel gets there own variant, anyway...

But why such a deal on industrial offsets?

This could simply be a matter of allowing Israel to "beta-test" new software and weapons for the F-35 without having to commit the entire program to it.  It also makes strategic sense to ensure that Israel has a strong military-industrial base, since it may not always be practical (or politically palatable) to supply it with U.S. made weapons of war.

Whatever the case, Israel is certainly an outlier in the world of JSF partners.  As such, it is hard for JSF supporters to point at it as an example of how successful the F-35 program is.

[NOTE:  With Israel and its current political situation being a controversial topic, I will take extra care reading the comments for this post.  I will remind all my readers that I have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to hate-speech.  This post is to merely illustrate Israel's F-35 deal.  It is not the place to discuss conspiracy theories, anti-semitism, or the quagmire surrounding the occupied territories.  I will ask you to tread lightly and stay respectful.]


Published: By: Unknown - 8:31 AM

Catching up with JSF news.

Once again I have to apologize for my lack of posting lately.  The holiday season is always a busy time of year for me, and this year the chaos has been upped to the nth degree.  There is light at the end of the tunnel, however.  Hopefully, the new year result in things going back (relative) normal.

In the meantime, I want to thank everyone for participating in the "What if" series of questions.

There has been a lot going on with the JSF in relation to Canada, however, and I would not feel right if the latest developments went unnoticed.

So lets get to it, shall we?

The F-35 needs cool fuel.

F-35 fuel truck, painted white.

It all started when the USAF released photos of F-35 refueling trucks.  Instead of the usual olive drab, the tanks were painted shiny white.  Why?  Because the JSF uses its onboard fuel as a method to cool its various systems.  Imagine if the radiator in your car held fuel instead of coolant.  Instead of cooling just the engine, this fuel also cools all the various electronic systems throughout the aircraft as well.

As you can imagine, fuel that has been sitting in the sun on a hot tarmac for hours tends to gain a little heat.  Using warm fuel as a coolant is counter-productive, so the USAF has decided to repaint its fuel trucks that shiny white in order to mitigate things.  The cost?  $4,000 per truck.

Given Canada's climate, we should not worry too much...  As long as we don't send fighters anywhere warm.

Dutch F-35s will cost about $50,000 per flight hour.

That's US dollars.

The Netherlands has already been forced to cut its F-35 order down to 37 (from 85) in order to fit within its $6 billion acquisition budget.  Now it turns out a small fleet will result in higher than expected operating costs.

Based on an operating tempo of 200 hours per year, Dutch F-35s are estimated to cost $46,200 to $57,600(US) per FLIGHT HOUR.

Whoa.

It really doesn't matter what we pick.

According the the recently released "Evaluation of Options for the Replacement of the CF-18 Fighter Fleet, any of the four fighters studied (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, and JSF) would do just fine protecting Canada's airspace.

A sizable 90% of Canada's fighter missions occur over North American airspace.  Breaking it down even further, 80% of CF-18 flight hours involve protecting sovereign Canadian airspace.  For the mission of "Defence of Canada" all fighters were deemed "Low to Medium risk" well into the "Beyond 2030" timeframe.

In fact, all of the fighters scored pretty much the same for the majority of missions.  The only stand-out was in the "State-on-State War Fighting" a category that Canada is unlikely to be facing by itself.

The report does not go into detail about which fighter scored better than others.  Oddly enough, all but the F-35 may be out of production by the time Canada finally gets around to replacing its geriatric Hornets.  But the Gripen will.

The report is fairly lengthy, yet does not go into specifics about capabilities or costs.  I will be covering it in depth in the weeks coming up.

Lockheed Martin ripped off its own employee's pension funds.

Lockheed Martin has settled a $1.3 billion dollar lawsuit that claimed it shortchanged its workers' pension plans.  It turns out that excessive fees made for a lower return on investment than if the workers had invested privately.

The whole point of pension plans is that they typically offer less risk and higher returns than private investing.  Otherwise, what's the point?

The Liberal Party of Canada is looking very anti-JSF.

Formerly a Conservative CF-18 pilot, now a Liberal F-35 critic.

If you have any doubts where the Liberal Party of Canada stands on the F-35, look no further.  Former CF-18 pilot Stephen Fuhr has announced that he is running as the Liberal candidate for Kelowna-Lake Country.  Not only that, but Fuhr will also join Justin Trudeau's foreign policy team.

Fuhr has been an outspoken critic of the F-35 for Canada.  Astute readers will recognize his name from the video I posted last month.  

Fellow Liberal (and astronaut) Marc Garneau has also spoken out against the F-35 acquisition.  Other prominent Liberals seem to be well on their way to making the JSF an election issue next year.  

The New Democrat Party seem to be quite anti-JSF as well, calling for an "open and transparent tender process".

It looks like the F-35's fate in Canada could be decided during the next federal election.

[NOTE:  I do not like going political, but there is simply no ignoring what is going on.  The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) are clearly trying to avoid F-35 controversy while covertly going along with troubled program.  It is hard to fly a $46 billion dollar defense acquisition under the radar, however.  This WILL be an election issue.]

Published: By: Unknown - 8:45 AM

Supply ships: "Common sense" vs. "Duh..."

HMCS Protecteur being towed by USNS Sioux

The Canadian Navy's two Protecteur-class replenishment ships are done.  After 45 years of faithful service, HMCS Protecteur suffered an engine room fire off the coast of Hawaii and needed to be towed back to port.  Her sister ship, the HMCS Preserver, is not doing much better.  In 2011, it smashed into a Halifax dock causing over a half-million dollars in damages.  Both ships have been plagued with electrical problems.

These ships are no longer just "showing their age".  One of these ships is now officially dead with the other on life support.  Recently, it was announced that both ships have sailed their last journeys, along with the similar vintaged HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Algonquin destroyers.  This is just as well, as the two Protecteur-class ships were beginning to wear out there welcome in many ports thanks to their monohull design.

The Queenston-class

These two ships have served Canada well, but they have earned their rest.

Unfortunately, construction of the Protecteur-class replacement ships, the Queenston-class HMCS Queenston and HMCS Châteauguay, will not begin until late 2016.  That means they will not be ready for service until 2020 at the earliest.  (Funny how a lot of Canada's military procurements have been put off until the the 2020s...)

With no replenishment ships, and the retirement of two destroyers, Canada will have a diminished "blue water" navy in the upcoming years.

That is...  Unless...

"Oh look, it's the USS Bridge...  AND ITS FOR SALE!"

As timing would have it, the United States Navy has recently been forced to decommission some of its ships due to deep sequestration cuts.  Two of these, the Supply-class USS Rainier and the USS Bridge, just so happen to be two of the USN's newest replenishment ships.  The reasoning behind this is that these two ships known as "fast combat support ships" and are more costly to operate than older replenishment ships.  The youngest of the fleet, the USS Bridge, should be retired as you read this.  Her sister ship, the USS Rainier, will be held in reserve for the next year.

Canada finds itself short two supply ships at the same time the USN retires two of hers?  The solution seems obvious.

Indeed it is.  The Royal Canadian Navy is contemplating leasing or purchasing the USS Bridge in order to fill the gap left by the Protecteur-class.  This would seem to be a "no-brainer", but there are a few issues to consider.  For one, the Supply-class ships are quite a bit larger, being 60 meters longer and about twice the displacement.  There is also the issue of operating costs.  The Rainier and Bridge are turbine powered, giving them impressive speed at the cost of fuel consumption.  The Rainier and Bridge require far less manpower, however, needing a crew of about 200 (same as the upcoming Queenston-class) as opposed to the Protecteur-class's 290.

If the sizes and operating costs are manageable, then the most prudent course of action would be to not only lease, but purchase both Supply-class vessels.  Once this is done, either cancel or indefinitely postpone construction of the Queenston-class.

The reasoning is simple.  Both the Rainier and the Bridge are young vessels, commissioned in 1995 and 1998, respectively.  If they match the lifespan of the recently retired Protecteur, than both will soldier on until at least 2040.  More than likely, they are capable of operating well into the 2050s and beyond.  Compared to the Berlin-class (from which the Queenston-class will be based), the Supply-class is faster, more heavily armed, and has roughly twice the fuel carrying capacity.

The Supply-class may indeed seem like overkill for Canada's more modest navy, but I would argue otherwise.  Canada's enormous coastline dictates erring on the side of "too much" rather than "too little".  Also, the importance of being able to contribute such an impressive resource into a coalition force should not be underestimated.

What to buy with the money we save:  The Mistral-class.

The biggest advantage?  Procurement cost.  At an estimated $2.9 billion, the cost to build just two indigenous joint support ships is simply ludicrous.  The RCN cannot be expected to perform its duties with less ships at a higher cost.  In contrast, the USA would likely sell us their surplus ships for a song, likely on the condition we join them for the occasional coalition action.  For $2.9 billion, the RCN could likely acquire both the USS Bridge, the USS Rainier, and still have money to poach one (possibly both) of the Mistral-class Amphibious Assault Ships away from the Russians ($1.7 billion for both).

Another advantage is opportunity cost.  Purchasing these replenishment ships will free up Vancouver's Seaspan shipyards to build the much needed Diefenbaker-class icebreakers.

Some may be wary about purchasing used naval assets given what happened with the Victoria-class submarines.  That is understandable, but their are few similarities between the Supply-class vessels and the Upholder-class submarines.  Before becoming the Canadian Victoria-class, the Upholders were placed in mothballs for years.  Not only that, but the submarines were beset with issues from the very start, and the HMCS Chicoutimi was built to an older safety standard.  Even then, the lethal fire was found to have been caused by human factors, not mechanical failure.

It is time for a wake-up call.  Canada's military needs equipment.  Not in or around 2020.  Not next year, not now...  They need it yesterday.  A flexible and opportunistic approach to procurement may allow our forces to acquire the equipment they need at a cost palatable to the taxpayer.  In some instances, like this one, the opportunity is there to get a much greater capability at a fraction of the original cost.  It really is win-win.

Ain't nothing wrong with shopping at a thrift shop...

Published: By: Unknown - 9:01 AM

The countdown begins...

"Ugh...  No...  Not again..."

A Canadian federal election planned for fall of next year.  This means that the current parliamentary session will see all sides in full "Election Mode" as the 2015 election cycle unofficially begins.  Criticisms will be hurled, diatribes spoken, and pundits will be punditing.

Expect the Senate scandal to be a hot topic, naturally.  There will also be debate about the controversial changes to the criminal code.  There will also be discussion about Canada's continued involvement overseas combined with our militaries abysmal procurement process.


 A controversial F-35 purchase announcement, followed by a reset, followed by whatever the heck is happening now is more than enough to put the current Conservative government in the opposition's crosshairs.  If that was not enough, there is still the matter of a stillborn FWSAR replacement, the expensive shipbuilding strategy, and a military budget that in no way matches Canada's ambitions.

Of course, the Conservative government need not take all of the blame for Canada's current military procurement woes.  There is plenty of blame to go around.

Canada's current military procurement predicament has been ongoing for years.  It is difficult to say when it started exactly, but the focal point obviously goes back to when a newly elected Jean Chretien cancelled the EH101 purchase intended to replace the aging Sea King helicopter.  (I wonder, whatever happened there...)

With the F-35, the sitting Tory government can claim (rightly so) that the JSF purchase was started back in the days of a Liberal-held parliament.  This is true, as Canada did buy in early as an "industrial partner".

Whatever the case, the important thing to remember is that placing blame for something for easy.  It is also nearly pointless.  What is important is that steps are taken to avoid future problems.  Politicians like to make brash statements demonizing their political foes, it makes for great soundbites and it takes a lot less effort than coming up with actual solutions.

Whatever your political affiliation or leaning might be, please keep this in mind.  Look for candidates that concentrate on moving forward rather than dwelling in the past.  Contact your MP (if you haven't already) and let them know where you stand.  Do the same to the new batch of local candidates soon to be appearing at your doorstep.  Even if a political party has done disagreeable things in the past, concentrate on where they are going.  Political parties are a fickle thing, more than willing to change past policy if it means a better chance at getting elected.

Keep looking forward.  Canada's military already lives in the past thanks to its antiquated equipment. In order for it to live in the future, attitudes must change. Published: By: Unknown - 4:41 PM

The Super Hornet is NOT the only F-35 alternative!

F/A-18E Super Hornet

I am sure by now many of you have seen the report stating that the Super Hornet is the only aircraft being considered by Canadian government officials as a true alternative to the F-35 Lightning II.  This would seem to indicate that the "Eurocanards" (Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen) were only included for appearances.

First of all, I would remind everyone to take "reports" like this with a grain of salt. This would not be the first time a major bombshell dropped out of Ottawa only to fizzle out a short time later.  There has already been plenty of false starts in the CF-18 replacement caper, there is bound to be a few more before all is said and done.

It should also be noted that these "leaks" come out intentionally.  This is a means to gauge public reaction before a controversial decision is made.  There is a good chance the current government is "testing the waters" before coming to its decision.

So why all the fuss?

Many see the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as the natural successor to Canada's aging CF-18s.  The Super Hornet is bigger, more modern, and in most ways better than the legacy Hornet.  It is also similar enough to simplify the training, maintenance, and logistic headaches usually associated with a new military platform.

It also helps that the Super Hornet has already proven itself in the U.S. Navy over the last few years.  On top of all that, it would likely be one of, if not the, cheapest option.

So why not just go ahead and get it?

For one, it may not be the best fighter for Canada's needs.  While it certainly is an impressive workhorse, and the USN seems quite happy with it, the Super Hornet lacks some of the capabilities found in other fighters, like a built in IRST, supercruise, etc.

The Super Hornet's external IRST.

This is a known issue with the Super Hornet and steps have been taken to fix this.  An external IRST has been developed, mounted on then centerline external fuel tank.  While this does give the Rhino IRST capability, it is still somewhat of a kit bash.  For one, its placement is not optimal as it gives only a forward-down view.  It also requires the use a one of the Super Hornet's pylons to mount the hybrid fuel tank/IRST pod.  This adds weight, RCS, and drag.  It also makes for a compromised fuel tank, as it reduces the amount of room available for fuel.  Also, forget about jettisoning it to save weight.

Boeing has gone one better however, with the "Super Hornet International Road Map" aka the "Advanced Super Hornet" aka the "Block III Super Hornet".

The Advanced Super Hornet improves on the Super Hornet by adding built-in IRST, CFTs, enclosed weapon pods, and a more powerful variant of its GE 414 engines.  This promises to fully flesh out the Rhino to compete with other fighter aircraft on the market.

If Canada were to select the Super Hornet, the Advanced Super Hornet would certainly be the way to go.

There is one small problem with this however...

While the USN has been "pleased" with Advanced Super Hornets thus far, it has yet to actually commit to upgrading its current or future fleet.  With the F-35 program taking up most of the Pentagon fighter budget, there may not be any Advanced Super Hornets in the USN's future.

If Canada does decide to procure the Block III Rhino, it may very well be the only ones footing the bill for all those upgrades.  While plenty of figures have been thrown around regarding these upgrades (usually and additional $10 million per copy) the true cost will ultimately depend on the number of aircraft built to that standard and how smoothly testing goes.

The real issue would be the extra cost and complexity of operating a "bastardized" model.  This issue has been raised with the troublesome Cyclone helicopter program.  With Canada as the only buyer, the manufacturer has little incentive to fix issues on a timely basis, as other more lucrative projects take priority.  This also reduces the aircraft's interoperability with other services, as different parts and training are needed.

That 3° outward pylon angle increases drag, but is needed for proper weapon separation.

If the Super Hornet is chosen to replace the CF-18, it should do so on its own merits based on performance and price.  To select it simply because it is the only other American-built alternative is both foolish and negligent.

For one, Canada has bought European aircraft in the past.  It currently operates the Airbus made Polaris and the Agusta-Westland Cormorant, both European made.  Pilot training is conducted in BAE Hawks (these are leased).  A look at Canada's current military equipment reveals weapons originating from Sweden, France, Belgium, the UK, and countless other countries.  Before the F/A-18 was selected, both the Mirage F-1 and Panavia Tornado were considered.  

Also, Boeing is still manufacturing the F-15, and likely will be long after Super Hornet production has ended.  If Canada is hell-bent on purchasing an American fighter, the Silent Eagle is certainly worth a look.

The Block III's enclosed weapon pod

Would the Super Hornet be an acceptable fighter for Canada?  Absolutely.  Is it the best fighter for Canada?  That gets more complicated.

If going by cost, the Gripen NG would cost more to procure, but lower operating costs would more than make up the difference.  If two engines is required (the F-35's selection would suggest it isn't) then both the Typhoon and Rafale offer superior speed and performance to the Super Bug, and both have built in IRST.  The Super Hornet's carrier capability would help it operate from austere bases, but the Gripen and Rafale have this ability also.

Even with the proposed Block III upgrades, there is just very little about the Super Hornet that stands out.  It may very well be "good enough" but since when should that be something Canadians shoot for?

Perhaps the best decision with the Super Hornet would be to purchase a smaller amount, much like Australia did.  A purchase of a smaller amount (say 24-36) would bring the RCAF a much needed bump in capability while still leaving room to procure more fighters in the future.  This may lead to the RCAF operating a mixed fleet, but that might not be a bad thing.

So what fighter would work best with the Super Hornet?

The Gripen NG would my first choice, it utilizes the same engine and the two fighters would both do an excellent job of making up for the other's weaknesses (Super Hornet's speed, Gripen's payload, etc).  Then again, the pressure to purchase the F-35 may finally cause the government to cave in and purchase it after some of the kinks are worked out 5-10 years from now.

Of course, by then, there may be another choice.

Published: By: Unknown - 7:49 PM