News   Jan 15, 2025
Winter Delivery
 150     1 
News   Jan 14, 2025
Kazmir and Curio Condos Top Off Along The Queensway
 502     0 
News   Jan 14, 2025
Affordable Housing Prominent in Four-Tower Proposal on The Queensway
 1.5K     1 

F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

More along this thread title.

John Ivison: Auditor's F35 lightning to strike twice — and this time the Liberals may get burned
Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Vance are going to enjoy a dish of cold revenge, a full two years after their claims that the country faced an urgent shortage of fighter jets

What rejoicing there must be in the twin towers at National Defence HQ at the news Canada’s auditor general is going to investigate the fighter jet “capability gap” claim used as justification for sole sourcing the purchase of 18 shiny, new Boeing Super Hornets.

At last, the prospect of vindication against allegations made by out of touch former air force commanders and cynical pundits that the entire “capability gap” excuse was a load of trumped up codswallop designed to push off the purchase of the next generation of fighters until after the next election, thereby living up to the campaign commitment not to buy Lockheed Martin’s F35 Lightning stealth jet.
Click to expand...
 
This news that Canada has chosen a British design for its new warship is interesting.


I don’t think Canada has built a surface warship designed by Britain since the Flower class. Does this signal a move away from US kit? Now that we’re buying used Hornets to get us into the late 2020, maybe Trudeau will buy whatever replaces the Eurofighter Typhoon in the 2030s.
 
Admiral Beez said:
This news that Canada has chosen a British design for its new warship is interesting.

I don’t think Canada has built a surface warship designed by Britain since the Flower class. Does this signal a move away from US kit? Now that we’re buying used Hornets to get us into the late 2020, maybe Trudeau will buy whatever replaces the Eurofighter Typhoon in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
Not chosen yet:
A contract award is expected this winter, with construction beginning in the early 2020s. The Canadian Surface Combatant project is the largest, most complex procurement ever undertaken by the Government of Canada.

The announcement follows the decision made by the Australian Government in June 2018 to select the Type 26 for its Future Frigate program.

The Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia notes:

1. This step in the project was not a contract award. It was selection of the “preferred bidder” and design. There are details including cost to be worked out. It will take time before a contract is awarded (“winter 2019” is mentioned as date for the award which is understood to mean before end March 2019).

2. Testing needs to be done of what is being offered, and that will take time. If problems arise then there will be more negotiations. If negotiations with the preferred bidder do not lead to resolution of issues, then government will turn to the second bidder. Who the second bidder has not been announced and likely will not be due to negotiations.

3. It will take more time before steel is cut. Cutting of steel is an evident but by far not the first step in shipbuilding. But there is a sense of urgency, particularly as the shipbuilder is emphasizing the potential for a shipbuilding gap between the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship project and Canadian Surface Combatant project. Project management staffs are surely considering options. And timings have to be considered within the Canadian political calendar.

4. There is need for some “Canadianization” of the design and that will take time. (As an aside, whether there is a lot of Canadianization or not, there should be avoidance of calling the ships Type 26 or even Canadian Type 26. That naming convention is Royal Navy. The ships are being built under the Canadian Surface Combatant project and should be known by their first-of-class name, just as the Harry DeWolf-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels are.)

5. A focus on intellectual property (IP) access and rights is appropriate. The Canadian government needs come control over IP to support the operation and maintenance of the ships so at least not to be held hostage to a particular manufacturer’s availability and price. Control is particularly important what with the Canadian practice of operating ships for 30 plus years with often a major mid-life refit and significant change to the ships' equipment. IP security has not been an issue in past Canadian shipbuilding projects. It would set a very bad precedent otherwise.

6. Intriguing is the possibility of a Type 26 “users group” with the U.K. and Australia who have chosen the Type 26. Even more intriguing would be what could happen if the U.S. decides to base their next frigate design on the Type 26.
Click to expand...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-chooses-bae-type-26-for-next-generation-warships
 
steveintoronto said:
Not chosen yet
Click to expand...
By these headlines you'd think Canada had declared its choice.

Type 26 Frigate wins Canadian frigate competition
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-wins-canadian-frigate-competition/

Canada Chooses BAE Type 26 for Next Generation Warships
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-chooses-bae-type-26-for-next-generation-warships

Type 26 named as the design for Canada’s future warship
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/nati...amed-as-the-design-for-canadas-future-warship

What do you have that contradicts these?
 
Admiral Beez said:
What do you have that contradicts these?
Click to expand...
Already posted. Perhaps reading detail isn't your thing:
The Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia notes:

1. This step in the project was not a contract award. It was selection of the “preferred bidder” and design. There are details including cost to be worked out. It will take time before a contract is awarded (“winter 2019” is mentioned as date for the award which is understood to mean before end March 2019).
[...]
Click to expand...

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-chooses-bae-type-26-for-next-generation-warships

From your posted Ottawa Citizen link:
Irving Shipbuilding and Public Services and Procurement Canada have announced that BAE-Lockheed Martin is the industry team which scored the highest with their bid to provide the 15 new warships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The consortium is the “preferred bidder” according to the federal government, for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Its design is the Type 26. That selection will now set off negotiations which in turn will – if all is successful – produce a contract. [...]
Click to expand...
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/nati...amed-as-the-design-for-canadas-future-warship

But there's a much deeper story at play:
Industry cries foul as Canadian government makes more changes to bid process for $60B warship program
The new change has sparked more concerns the process is rigged to favour a bid by Lockheed Martin Canada and British firm BAE, industry sources say

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
August 21, 2018
6:17 PM EDT

The government has once again changed how it will evaluate bids on its $60-billion warship program, prompting more concerns the new process is designed to help out a company linked to Irving Shipbuilding.

The move is the latest twist in the ongoing saga of the Canadian Surface Combatant, believed to be the largest single defence purchase Canada has ever undertaken.

Companies have already provided their bids for the surface combatant project to the federal government and Irving, which will construct the vessels. The firms were expecting those to be evaluated using an established process outlined previously, which included one opportunity to fix problems with bids.

But on Aug. 13, the government informed the firms a second opportunity would be provided if the companies weren’t fully compliant in meeting Canada’s naval requirements, according to industry sources.

Jean-François Létourneau of Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed the new process, but added, “this is an example of how the Government of Canada is developing and applying innovative approaches to improve the results for large, complex defence procurements.” [...]
Click to expand...
https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...hanges-to-bid-process-for-60b-warship-program

Incoming torpedoes!
 
Last edited:
@Admiral Beez

The Type 26 was the favoured design. In fact, other bidders complained. We removed the requirement for non-developmental designs and delayed the competition for a few months so they could bid. To be fair, the Chretien/Martin governments forced similar requirements for the Sea King replacement so the EH-101 would not win for the third time. It's why the replacement is only operational this year. So, this could burn us. But the Brits do build fantastic warships so....

I wouldn't worry too much about the bureaucratic stuff. Happens with virtually every major acquisition. And this is a good size one. Even by global standards . The difference here is the whole peculiar situation where we picked the design, but Irving negotiates the build contract. I'm not a fan of that concept. But the politicians have decided Irving is that important.

Admiral Beez said:
I don’t think Canada has built a surface warship designed by Britain since the Flower class. Does this signal a move away from US kit?
Click to expand...

I don't see the argument that we're moving away from the US . The RCN has never bought American ships. Most countries don't. The Americans build massive ships which few other countries can afford to operate. Standard American ship is a destroyer. For us and the Brits (and most other countries), it's a frigate. With Destroyers as command ships.

The Type 26 is fantastic design and every sailor I know is happy it won.
Now if only those of us in blue can have that same moment with the F-35.

We're actually getting a slightly more advanced version of the Type 26. Was surprised that the Brits don't have solid state Phased Array Radars in theirs:

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps-news/euronaval-2018-ten-percent-difference-between-type/

Maybe they are waiting for us to do the engineering work! That would be some turnabout.

The exciting thing here is the cooperation between the UK, Australia and us on a brand new design. It's a change from the Halifax and Iroquois. Designs unique to Canada. With the high sustainability costs to go with them.

Now if we can just get past the policy of not buying cruise missiles, our ships will actually be respectable.

Admiral Beez said:
Now that we’re buying used Hornets to get us into the late 2020, maybe Trudeau will buy whatever replaces the Eurofighter Typhoon in the 2030s.
Click to expand...

Lol. Our government claims the F-35 is too expensive. And you think we can afford a sixth generation jet replacing the Typhoon?

We're now a full generation behind on fighter aircraft. And by the end of the 2030s risk being two generations behind if the next Government doesn't buy the F-35. The Europeans and Americans are already moving on sixth generation:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/uk-tempest-fighter-jet-typhoon-farnborough-airshow

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ighter-jet-program-with-germany-idUSKBN1JF2UJ

https://www.defensenews.com/digital...-going-on-with-americas-next-fighter-designs/

As usual, the luddites in this country who don't understand technology, won the day and will drag us further behind. It's not just our air force. Our entire aerospace sector could face skill fade thanks to the decision to not get on with the F-35. Dunno whether to laugh or cry that my predictions are coming true.

As predicted the costs have come down and the F-35 is cheaper (on lifecycle costs) than all the alternatives expect the lower capability Gripen. And as predicted, not only is cost going down but capability is going up. The plane is so good, the Americans don't need support jammers anymore:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...t-of-the-f-35-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/

Heck, it's so good the US Army wants them.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-10-warthog-army-wants-f-35-34197
 
Last edited:
Have to admit I do like the look of the Type 26. And they can't come soon enough. Earlier this month I visited HMCS Vancouver in San Francisco and the Canadian frigate was an embarrassing display of rusted pipes, zip ties and gaffer tape.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Have to admit I do like the look of the Type 26. And they can't come soon enough. Earlier this month I visited HMCS Vancouver in San Francisco and the Canadian frigate was an embarrassing display of rusted pipes, zip ties and gaffer tape.
Click to expand...

They are getting to the end of their service lives. That said, we do a decent job with maintaining the ones that do deploy. Just that Fleet Week (awesome as it is....I didn't get to drive up this year) isn't a priority for a high readiness ship to be on display.

I actually think some of the other ships "look" better. But the key here is that the partnership is huge. At 15 ships, we're nearly double the size of the home country order. And with 32 ships in total, (with 15 orders) we're 48% of the total type orders. We'll actually have some pull on any sort of engineering and logistics forums on these ships. That's huge. These are the sort of defence partnerships that I wish Canada did more of. By the way, the Australian competition featured the same contenders. And the Type 26 won there too.

Also interesting that the Dutch design came second and the Spanish came third. The Spaniards have the AEGIS combat system. I've only ever heard rave reviews of it. So I fully expected it to come second.

It really shows you the divergence between us and the Americans. They are running the FFG(X) program to buy a frigate (hilariously, their "small" combatant). And the only two contenders from the CSC in their program are the two that placed lower in our program: the Franco-Italian FREMM and the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan.
 
kEiThZ said:
They are getting to the end of their service lives. That said, we do a decent job with maintaining the ones that do deploy.
Click to expand...
I was visiting CFB Esquimalt two years back and they had a Halifax class in dry dock for extensive refit. They had blasted off all the paint, and you could tell by the time they were done that the ship was going to look like new.

At Fleet Week I asked a sailor on HMCS Vancouver about the subs, and if the Victoria class I'd also seen in drydock in BC was still there. He replied yes. I asked him what the crews do when the ship is idle for so long, and he said we only have sufficient submariners for two boats, so there are no idle crews for the other two.

As for the CF-18s, I must applaud the maintenance crews for keeping those aircraft from the mid-190s in the air. I wouldn't want to fly in a Boeing 747 that was from the 1980s, let alone a a fighter with its airframe demands.

At the end of the day I think we will buy F-35As. It makes the most sense, and the technical/design foibles will be worked out by the time we buy them.

Now we if we can just get into the RAN's Barracuda class AIP subs to replace the Victorias.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I was visiting CFB Esquimalt two years back and they had a Halifax class in dry dock for extensive refit. They had blasted off all the paint, and you could tell by the time they were done that the ship was going to look like new.

At Fleet Week I asked a sailor on HMCS Vancouver about the subs, and if the Victoria class I'd also seen in drydock in BC was still there. He replied yes. I asked him what the crews do when the ship is idle for so long, and he said we only have sufficient submariners for two boats, so there are no idle crews for the other two.

As for the CF-18s, I must applaud the maintenance crews for keeping those aircraft from the mid-190s in the air. I wouldn't want to fly in a Boeing 747 that was from the 1980s, let alone a a fighter with its airframe demands.

At the end of the day I think we will buy F-35As. It makes the most sense, and the technical/design foibles will be worked out by the time we buy them.

Now we if we can just get into the RAN's Barracuda class AIP subs to replace the Victorias.
Click to expand...
+1. Or failing that the Virginia class. With the provision that we buy fixed price, off the shelf at the best price, with no provision for Canadian industrial offsets.
 
pman said:
+1. Or failing that the Virginia class. With the provision that we buy fixed price, off the shelf at the best price, with no provision for Canadian industrial offsets.
Click to expand...
You’re suggesting nuclear attack boats? The US won’t sell those to Canada (they blocked our fainting thoughts of a Trafalgar/Rubis SSN buy) and we don’t want them. I just want some modern and safe AIP-capable SSKs for under ice ops.
 
Last edited:
Is it that the US doesn’t trust us to keep the technology secret? As for Canada not wanting them is it cost or something else?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top