F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

[kEiThZ]

Now we if we can just get into the RAN's Barracuda class AIP subs to replace the Victorias.

Our country really isn't serious about the Arctic. So no, we aren't getting more subs. Our Arctic is a massive playground for everybody's nuclear subs. From the Americans, to the British, to the French, to the Russians and even the Chinese. The only reasons we have the ones we do is so that our allies have an obligation to tell us when they enter with their subs, to avoid collisions. There's nothing in the shipbuilding plan to replace those subs. And truthfully, if we want to play in the Arctic, we need high capability subs (nuclear or close enough like the shortfin Barracudas). It's not coming.

http://www.navalreview.ca/2017/09/canadas-future-submarines/

+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.

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.

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?

Submarine tech is amongst the most sensitive technology the Americans have. And they have zero interest in sharing it. They wouldn't share it with the Brits. We're much further down the totem pole. They also plain just do not want another nuclear sub player in the Arctic. That limits their manoeuverability. And it's why they opposed the Canada Class as proposed by Mulroney:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine

 

[nfitz]

So it appears Trump is upset with Canada and guy in charge of the F-35 program has written that the F-35 program "does not allow the F-35 to participate in a fair and open competition". Easy solution then - don't bid. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-cf18-trump-military-procurement-canadian-air-force-1.5125009

Is Canada still at war with Boeing? Might be running out of options.

 

[steveintoronto]

Is Canada still at war with Boeing? Might be running out of options.

I thought same initially, and we just have that one news source to judge by, so I went to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute site and downloaded the paper. Haven't fully read it yet, just skimmed it.

Here's the thing with the F-35: It is *highly controversial* in a number of the nations in the consortium. Only a few have taken them without serious doubts, not least since the vehicle doesn't meet the specs claimed. Even in the US it remains a point of great angst and conjecture. "Too big to fail" as a *make work* project. The majority of states are on the gravy train for it. Let's flip that over, there's only a few that don't get direct subsidized benefit.

The author of the Cdn study appears to have his mind made up before doing the study. There's a lot of questions remaining on this, and at the end of the day, the next generation again replacement for the F-35 is in the works, and the approach is quite different for a number of examples. The F-35 isn't for 'tomorrow's threat and combat'. It's for yesterday's.

I was just Googling to find reference to multiplicity of problems with this craft, there's no shortage of them, but this is from the US Accountability Office, a free standing non-political agency of the US Gov't, from just a few weeks back:

Government watchdog finds more problems with F-35’s spare parts pipeline
By: Valerie Insinna   April 25

WASHINGTON — Only about half of the F-35 fighter jets worldwide were ready to fly during an eight-month period in 2018, with the wait for spare parts keeping jets on the ground nearly 30 percent of the time, according to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Over the past several years, the Defense Department sought to improve mission-capable rates by making improvements to the way it and F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin order, stockpile and repair spare parts. However, GAO’s findings imply the situation may have gotten worse.

The GAO’s report, released April 25, investigated how spare parts shortages impacted F-35 availability and mission-capable rates in 2018, with most data gathered between a May and November sustainment contract period.

“In 2017, we reported that DOD was experiencing sustainment challenges that were reducing warfighter readiness, including delays of 6 years in standing up repair capabilities for F-35 parts at its depots and significant spare parts shortages that were preventing the F-35 fleet from flying about 20 percent of the time,” the report found.
“According to prime contractor data, from May through November 2018, F-35 aircraft across the fleet were unable to fly 29.7 percent of the time due to spare parts shortages,” it said. “Specifically, the F-35 supply chain does not have enough spare parts available to keep aircraft flying enough of the time necessary to meet warfighter requirements.”
That lack of improvement may make it more difficult for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to hit an 80 percent mission-capable rate by the end of fiscal 2019, as mandated last fall by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
The military services stopped providing mission-capable rates for aircraft last year, citing operational sensitivities. However, the data put forth by the GAO indicates progress stagnated in the lead-up to Mattis’ order. [...continues at length...]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...ore-problems-with-f-35s-spare-parts-pipeline/


Bad data in F-35 logistics system resulting in lost missions
Ever wonder what's driving down the F-35's mission capable rates? Here's one factor.
By: Valerie Insinna

 

[kEiThZ]

So it appears Trump is upset with Canada and guy in charge of the F-35 program has written that the F-35 program "does not allow the F-35 to participate in a fair and open competition". Easy solution then - don't bid. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-cf18-trump-military-procurement-canadian-air-force-1.5125009

Not really that simple. The media and politicians have done a crap job explaining this. And the headline is bogus. This is less the Trump administration than the Pentagon. The previous administration had similar concerns too.

Our aerospace sector wants to be part of the F-35. There's way more high value specialized work for them there then an offset program with assembly line work from the other bidders. And part of being in the F-35 consortium was an expectation of purchasing the aircraft in a manner that facilitates the whole consortium. Not Just traditional offset arrangements.

So either we choose to get a large amount of low value assembly work that doesn't actually grow our skillbase (the likely outcome if the F-35 loses and we get booted from the consortium), or we buy the F-35 sans competition like other consortium members which lets us get full industrial participation or buy the F-35 and get direct offsets to our aerospace sector but probably less indirect offsets than 100% that we traditionally insist on with indirects.

On the military side, I've yet to meet anyone in uniform who doesn't like that airplane. It's performance at exercises speaks for itself. And the performance only gets better as pilots, battle planners and techs get more comfortable with the airplane. We've had enough personnel on exchange in the development program to know the problems that the Brits and the Americans have with the airplane. And at this point, at least from our perspective, the risk isn't any different on our end from any other fleet we've inducted. And the benefits and potentials far outweigh the risk.

This is all a result of the ridiculous promise Trudeau made to specifically not buy the F-35. It's a re-run of Chretien and the EH-101. It's incredible to see that kind of mismanagement happen again.

Is Canada still at war with Boeing? Might be running out of options.

Boeing could still get excluded from the competition. They've inserted the clause on national interest to give the government this option. The relationship hasn't been great. Beyond just the tiff with the Super Hornet. They aren't always great supporting fleets we've bought from them (C-17, Chinooks). Not as many fans. And the only fans I meet of the Super Hornet are fighter jocks who haven't flown a jet in a decade.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's the issue, and there's nothing new in this. Canada is not the only nation to have come up against this, and we'll be hearing a lot more about it in the next little while as nose-cones get bent out of shape. Canada is being hustled, doubtless. That Trump is directly involved, contrary to his prior statements on the JSF should come as no shock. Has he ever been wrong before?

Canada to keep paying for F-35 development as fighter-jet competition ramps up

LEE BERTHIAUME
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
PUBLISHED JANUARY 23, 2019
[...]
Partners are also allowed to buy the F-35 at a lower price than non-partners, who must pay a variety of fees and other costs to purchase the plane.

“We want to keep the F-35 as an option, as a contender in the competition,” Finn said.

“We want to also make sure that while that’s unfolding, that Canadian industry that have competitively won contracts get to continue to do that.”

The Defence Department says Canadian companies have won more than $1.25-billion in F-35-related contracts over the years.

Yet there are also costs to being a partner; Canada has so far invested more than $500-million into the program over the past 20 years, including $54-million last year.

Its next annual payment is due this spring and there will likely be more as the competition isn’t scheduled to select a winner until 2021 or 2022. The first new aircraft is expected in 2025 and the last in 2031.

There are some technical issues that government officials are working through that could impact how it runs the competition to replace the CF-18s.

One of those is how to ensure the various bids are all measured equally. In addition to Lockheed Martin’s F-35, bids are expected from Boeing’s Super Hornet, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen.

All four companies recently provided feedback on a draft process that the government has drawn up to run the competition, and another round of consultations is scheduled for mid-February.


A big question facing Lockheed is how it can meet Ottawa’s usual requirement that companies who are awarded large military contracts invest back into Canada on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

The F-35 partnership agreement that Canada signed with the other countries bars such promised investments and instead stipulates that companies must compete for the work.

Finn said all four jet companies have unique challenges and circumstances, and that officials in charge of the competition could inject some flexibility into how the requirement is handled.[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...-f-35-development-as-fighter-jet-competition/

I'd suggest that LM get a court decision on the matter if they feel so aggrieved.

Just because you work for General Motors doesn't mean you can't take bids from Ford, Chrysler or Saab for your work truck, even if you have shares in a GM vehicle development program, and a buggy, expensive underperforming one at that.

Last time I checked, the Super F-18 was just one of the aircraft to be considered. Some person's mantras need to be a little more accurate to be taken seriously.

Meantime:

GERMANY has come under fire for its decision to drop the F-35 stealth fighter as part of the upgrade of its airforce.
By SIMON OSBORNE
PUBLISHED: 00:07, Wed, May 1, 2019 | UPDATED: 13:52, Wed, May 1, 2019

Lockheed Martin, which makes the warplane, described the move as a “retrograde step” and warned the country’s ability to operate at the same level of as its NATO allies would be compromised. Germany will pick either the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F/A-18 fighter jet to replace its ageing fleet of Tornado warplanes. Defence ministers will make a final decision after receiving detailed information from Boeing and Airbus about the aircraft, which must be able to carry US nuclear weapons to fulfil Germany’s obligations to NATO.
[...]
Airbus welcomed the news about the Eurofighter replacement purchases, and said it remained convinced that its jet offered the lowest-risk prospect for replacing the Tornado jets.

Paris, Germany’s closest European partner, had warned that buying the F-35 in particular could derail plans to develop a new Franco-German fighter by 2040.

Germany’s defence commitment has come under regular attack from Donald Trump who has criticised Angela Merkel’s government for failing to spend enough money on defence.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...th-jet-fighter-angela-merkel-defence-spending

The cracks are in more than just the airframes...

THE predecessor to the US’s new top of the line fighter jet is far superior, according to pilots who would choose the F-22 Raptor over the newer F-35 “hands down”.
By SEAN MARTIN
PUBLISHED: 00:12, Fri, May 3, 2019 | UPDATED: 07:26, Fri, May 3, 2019
[...]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ce-F-35-fighter-jets-USA-f-22-lockheed-martin

How's that "Canada's a security risk" line coming along there Donald? If it walks like a duck...

The Trump Administration Is Officially Calling Canada A "National Security Threat"
https://www.mtlblog.com/news/the-tr...lly-calling-canada-a-national-security-threat

Seems the Donald likes to quack about steel and aluminum tariffs at the same time as lecturing us on our 'commitments'. And why exactly is the US Air Force sending letters to the Cdn Gov't on behalf of private contractors?

 

[BurlOak]

This is all a result of the ridiculous promise Trudeau made to specifically not buy the F-35. It's a re-run of Chretien and the EH-101. It's incredible to see that kind of mismanagement happen again.

If the first time was rewarded with 2 farther majority governments, why wouldn't history repeat?

 

[steveintoronto]

Seems the Donald likes to quack about steel and aluminum tariffs at the same time as lecturing us on our 'commitments'. And why exactly is the US Air Force sending letters to the Cdn Gov't on behalf of private contractors?

Speak of the quacking devil:

U.S., Canada at odds over fighter jet sale as list of disputes grows

DANIEL LEBLANCPARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS REPORTER
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED MAY 6, 2019UPDATED 4 MINUTES AGO

The U.S. military is threatening to pull the F-35 fighter jet out of the competition to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18s, further disrupting the controversial acquisition program and increasing the tension between the two countries.

The dispute, laid out for the first time in a Pentagon letter published Monday in a think-tank report, centres on Canada’s insistence on receiving guaranteed industrial benefits – mandatory investments in the Canadian economy – if it were to purchase F-35s.

But it also adds to a list of disagreements between the Trump administration and the Canadian government. The two countries are already fighting over steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Washington, and the future of a renegotiated North American free-trade agreement remains up in the air.
[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-us-canada-clash-over-purchase-of-new-fighter-jets/

LOL! Johnny gets sent home by the Principal for not marching in step, and Johnny does as he likes. How's those tariffs coming along there Donnie?...

And meanwhile:

Canada’s claim over the Northwest Passage is “illegitimate,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Monday in a major speech to the Arctic Council that Canadian experts called both provocative and frequently inaccurate.

U.S. says Canadian claim to Northwest Passage is ‘illegitimate’

 

[kEiThZ]

If the first time was rewarded with 2 farther majority governments, why wouldn't history repeat?

Trudeau is no Chretien.

 

[nfitz]

Trudeau is no Chretien.

Chretien was no Trudeau!

 

[kEiThZ]

In a certain sense, this is playing out interestingly. As the aircraft has matured, more and more of the public seems less hostile to it and getting onside.

Contract award isn't happening before the election from the looks of the timeline. So whoever wins the election has some options.

 

[BurlOak]

Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

Military procurement in Canada isn't about procurement, or the military, or honouring our commitments. It's about political booty

 

[steveintoronto]

Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?
Military procurement in Canada isn't about procurement, or the military, or honouring our commitments. It's about political booty

And where in almost any nation is this not the case?

You do realize there's only four states in the US than aren't on the JSF gravy train? There's no way Congress would have let this dog (and others) get this far if it didn't grease state palms.

I love the selective accusations tossed by the likes of Post Media, almost completely owned by US interests, and completely owned in terms of financing from the US:

Too big to fail: With millions invested, the F-35 is here to stay
By Raymond Arke
April 3, 2019

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) helped found the House Joint Strike Fighter Caucus and has received thousands from Lockheed Martin. (LAURA BUCKMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

In 1997, Lockheed Martin was selected to compete to design and build what would become the F-35 Lightning II. Over that course of time, this fighter jet program has become one of the most expensivein American history and has faced a variety of serious technical and functional challenges. The plane was finally deemed ready for combat in 2018, despite remaining concerns about the plane’s ability to fly and fight.
Even with all the controversy regarding the plane, bipartisan members of Congress this week asked their colleagues to adjust President Trump’s 2020 budget request to include more F-35s. As Lockheed has invested millions in congressional candidates and created jobs in nearly every U.S. state, the political support of the project remains strong.
The House members that wrote the letter asking for more F-35s are part of the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus. The group, led by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Martha Roby (R-Ala.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas) and Mike Turner (R-Ohio), was formed in 2011 by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and former Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wa.). All five of the current caucus members mentioned above received the maximum in PAC contributions from Lockheed Martin in the 2018 cycle. In a press release announcing the caucus’ formation, Granger and Dicks called the fighter plane program “an absolute necessity,” citing the number of jobs it would support.
Initially, the planes were supposed to cost $38 million each, however even though it often dramatically underperforms each individual plane costs the U.S. government an average of $158.4 million. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, while Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems contributed parts.
A recent report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) laid out the litany of problems facing the aircraft. Some of the issues include malfunctioning combat computer systems, cyber vulnerabilities which could allow hackers to access the planes’ network, problems with the accuracy of the planes’ guns and a tendency to develop cracks which require numerous repairs.
Dan Grazier, a former Marine Corps captain and military fellow at POGO and author of the report, said that even with all the program’s problems it will continue on.
“The military industrial congressional complex has perfected its methods for ensuring programs of this kind can endure despite disappointing performance in almost every objective military measure,” he said.
Likely part of the reason the program holds so much political support is because of its wide economic reach. Lockheed Martin says the F-35 directly and indirectly provides for 194,000 jobs across 46 states and Puerto Rico. [...]

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/04/too-big-to-fail-with-millions-invested-the-f-35/

"Political"? Gimme a freakin' break...What's the difference between this " In a press release announcing the caucus’ formation, Granger and Dicks called the fighter plane program “an absolute necessity,” citing the number of jobs it would support." and SNC-Lavalin's "9000 jobs" save for size?

 

[kEiThZ]

Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

Gets real entertaining if the F-35 doesn't bid. The rest of the bidders will have lost the biggest competitor. They'll inflate their bids. And we're basically guaranteed to buy an airplane at the end of its development cycle where we will probably be carrying all non-recurrent engineering costs beyond 2040. Short-term savings. Massive financial drain 20 years out.

 

[kEiThZ]

They are going to accomodate the F-35s different program and industrial structure:

https://nationalpost.com/news/natio...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1557437918

I expected they'd find some way. If the F-35 dropped out, the contest would have been deemed a sham and the rest of the bidders probably would have rubbed their hands with glee while they inflated their bids.

 

[lenaitch]

I refuse to get into debates about the new fighter programs, or at least have been soured off them. The topic by nature is highly specialized, technical and, to a degree, secretive, and more often than not, conflicting positions are dismissed out-of-hand because they're not from a pilot, aeronautical engineer, military strategist, etc., or labelled a fan-boy. No one competitor fits our needs perfectly, so any winner will be a trade-off.

The only point that seems to be in general agreement is that, should a decision be made solely on the bases of operational need and defence policy grounds, it will be a world first.