Norway's Experience with F-35 Procurement is a Lesson for Canada

By: Levon Sevunts, Radio Canada International

s the federal government embarks on a much delayed and criticized quest to find a replacement for its ageing fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, Norway’s saga with the acquisition of F-35 stealth fighters offers Canada a valuable lesson.

The search for a replacement for CF-18 got a new urgency Tuesday after a blistering report by Canada’s auditor general, who lambasted the Liberal government’s handling of the file that could have serious implications for Ottawa’s ability to fulfill its NATO and NORAD obligations.

Just like Ottawa, Oslo was one of the first NATO countries to show interest in the new stealth multirole fighters developed by U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

In June 2009, the Norwegian Parliament decided that the F-35A Lightning II would replace its current fleet of F-16 fighter jets. Unlike Ottawa, despite strong internal opposition, Oslo saw things through.

By 2025, Norway hopes to have a fleet of 52 F-35s. 

No-show at Trident Juncture demonstration

Norwegian F-16s escort a Jet Falcon DA-20 electronic warfare aircraft during an Air Power Capability Demonstration of the NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018 in Byneset near Trondheim, Norway, October 30, 2018. (Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images)

Norwegian authorities were hoping to showcase their newest and most expensive defence acquisition in the country’s history at a massive display of NATO’s military might during the official launch of Trident Juncture 2018 exercise on Oct. 30.

But much to the chagrin of dozens of journalists, NATO officials and dignitaries that had assembled on the shores of the Trondheim Fjord in central Norway to watch the display of land, sea and air power, the Norwegian F-35s never showed up.

Lt.-Col. Stale Nymoen, commander of the 332 Squadron of the Royal Norwegian Air Force and one of the first Norwegian pilots to learn to fly the F-35s, said strong crosswinds at the Ørland Air Base forced officials to cancel the planned overflight.

The cancellation of the overflight on an otherwise perfect autumn day had nothing to do with the jet’s capabilities, Nymoen said.

“Seen from my perspective, it’s one of the best fighter aircraft out there,” Nymoen told a roomful of journalists during a briefing at the Ørland Air Base in central Norway earlier this month.

But it has taken even experienced pilots like him years to learn to fly the new fighter jets and, just as importantly, unlearn old habits, Nymoen said.

The first three F-35 fighter jets ordered by Norway’s Air Force arrive in Orland Air Base in central Norway Friday Nov. 3, 2017. (Ned Alley/NTB scanpix via AP)

Norway received its first four F-35s in January of 2017. But all of them were stationed at the Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix, Arizona, where Norwegian, U.S. and Italian pilots trained on the new aircraft.

It wasn’t until November of 2017 that the stealth fighter jets actually arrived for service in Norway, at the Ørland Air Base, which is going through a massive infrastructure upgrade to house the new planes.

Operating and flying them in Norway with its harsh North Atlantic and Arctic climate is a whole new experience, Nymoen said.

“What is different from Luke when we train to operate the aircraft here is temperatures, winter, icy and slippery runways, winds,” Nymoen said. “Those are conditions that we don’t necessarily get to train for when we’re training in the United States.”

And the Norwegian air force is taking a very cautious approach to avoid any accidents, he said.

“We have to learn to crawl before we can walk, and we have to learn to walk before we can run,” Nymoen said.

The first squadron of F-35s is expected to reach initial operational capability in 2019 and full operational capability only in 2025, eight years after the aircraft were delivered to Norway.

This timeline would also apply to Canada, if Lockheed Martin were to emerge as the winner of the competition to buy 98 advanced aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force announced by the Liberal government last December.

The list of eligible suppliers identified by the federal government also includes France’s Dassault Aviation, Sweden’s SAAB, the U.K.’s Airbus Defense and Space, and the U.S. defence and aerospace giant Boeing.

If the federal government manages to stick to its timetable, a contract award is anticipated in 2022 and the first replacement aircraft delivered in 2025.

This means that the current fleet of Canadian CF-18s and the 18 additional second-hand Australian F-18s the federal government is buying as a stopgap measure will have to operate until at least 2030, experts say.

Auditor general takes aim at Liberals' fighter-jet plan with new probe

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press - Published to BNN Bloomberg 

OTTAWA -- Six years after helping blow up the Harper government's plans to buy F-35 stealth fighters without a competition, auditor general Michael Ferguson is about to release a new report on Canada's tumultuous attempts to buy new fighter jets.

This time, the focus will be on the Trudeau government's handling of the file, which includes adopting several stopgaps while taking its time on a competition to buy new planes for the Canadian Forces.

Ferguson is expected to report specifically on the financial and technological costs of flying Canada's venerable CF-18s -- plus a handful of second-hand Australian jets -- into the early 2030s, when the aircraft will be nearly 50 years old.

The auditor general is also expected to train a spotlight on the air force's problems recruiting and retaining fighter pilots, the question of whether Canada has enough jets to defend itself -- and whether the Liberals followed procurement laws.

Ferguson's report follows several years of criticism over the Trudeau government's decision not to launch an immediate competition to replace the CF-18s, which started flying in the 1980s and were supposed to be retired by 2020.

It has been highly anticipated in political and defence circles given the damage that Ferguson's previous report on fighter jets dealt to the Conservatives and because of the shroud of secrecy that has surrounded the Liberals' decision-making on the file.

The Trudeau government has forced hundreds of federal civil servants and contractors working on the fighter-jet project to sign lifelong non-disclosure agreements, while many documents associated with the issue have been declared cabinet secrets.

Canada's attempts to buy fighter jets have dragged on for nearly a decade since the previous Conservative government announced in 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s without a competition, with the first to be delivered in 2015.

The Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after Ferguson released a scathing report that found defence officials twisted procurement rules and misled Parliament. National Defence later revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes, much more than the sticker price.

The Trudeau Liberals waded into the issue in the 2015 election when they campaigned on a promise to hold an open and fair competition while at the same time vowing not to buy the F-35s.

But rather than launch a competition right away, as many suggested, the Liberals said in November 2016 that they would wait until 2019. In the meantime, they planned to use a hole in the federal procurement laws to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets without a competition.

The Liberals said at the time that the Super Hornets were urgently needed because Canada did not have enough CF-18s, but opposition parties and several retired military officers accused the government of bending the rules and wasting taxpayer dollars just to avoid buying the F-35.

They demanded the government launch an immediate competition to replace the CF-18s rather than wait; the government insisted more time was necessary to ensure due diligence and a successful procurement after years of trouble.

The government ultimately scrapped the plan to buy Super Hornets from Boeing for more than $6 billion due to a trade dispute between the U.S. aerospace giant and Montreal rival Bombardier.

But rather than launch a competition, it announced plans to buy 25 second-hand fighter jets from Australia for around $500 million.

The $19-billion competition to replace the CF-18s is slated to begin officially in the spring, though a winner won't be selected until 2021 or 2022. Delivery of the first of 88 planes is scheduled for 2025, with the last due in 2032.

The F-35 has been allowed to compete, despite the Liberals' election promise not to buy it. It is up against the Super Hornet as well as two European designs: the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen. A French company with a fifth option dropped out last week.

In the meantime, the government is looking to spend upwards of $1.5 billion to keep the CF-18s and Australian fighters in the air long enough for the new planes to be delivered.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said they key question leading up to the report's release is what impact it will have on the Liberal government and Canada's attempts to buy a new fighter jet.

"I hope it doesn't set back our fighter program by another 10 years," he said. "Because what the auditor general found -- and the way it was interpreted last time -- set the fighter-jet program back by a decade."

Bids For Permanent Fleet to Replace CF-18s Expected in 2019

By: David Pugliese, The National Post 

The Liberal government plans to request bids for a new fleet of fighter jets as early as 2019, which would coincide with the next federal election.

That move, along with the push by the Liberals to have the first of the interim Super Hornet fighter aircraft delivered by that year, could help blunt criticism about bungled military procurements and delays in buying a new jet, say military insiders and analysts.

Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed the 2019 date for the release to industry of the request for proposals for the permanent fighter fleet.

The department also noted the government expects a deal in place by the end of 2017 or early 2018 to acquire the 18 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim measure. The Liberal government has been pushing to get the first of those planes delivered some time in 2019, industry sources say.

Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said such moves could provide political cover for the Liberals. “It could be politically useful in an election year to have both in the works,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University in Toronto. “That’s a pretty good way to buy some political insulation.”

Shadwick said if the first Super Hornets arrive during the election year, that in particular would be a tangible event the Liberal government could highlight.

The Liberals had promised during the last campaign to purchase a replacement for the CF-18 jet fleet, pointing out that it would go for a cheaper alternative to the controversial F-35 stealth fighter that had been selected by the Conservative government.

That’s a pretty good way to buy some political insulation

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced in November the government’s decision to begin negotiations to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornets as “interim” fighter jets until a permanent fleet for the existing CF-18 aircraft could be bought.

The Liberals said Canada is facing a capability gap because it doesn’t have enough jets to fulfil its military missions, a situation Sajjan has blamed on the previous Conservative government for bungling the project to replace the aging CF-18s.

Canadian CF-18 Hornet flies beside two Portuguese F16 Flying Falcons over Lithuania on Sept. 15, 2014.
Cpl Gabrielle DesRochers/DNDA 

The Liberals’ upcoming Defence Policy Review will also contain details on the project to acquire a permanent replacement fleet for the CF-18s.

“These requirements will include the number of aircraft needed, the level of in-service support required and the estimated time of delivery,” noted the recently released update from Public Services and Procurement Canada. “Planning for the competition is already underway, and we anticipate a request for proposals will be issued in 2019.”

But the Liberal plan to buy the Super Hornets has come under fire from retired Royal Canadian Air Force generals, who say it is too costly. They argue the Liberals should cancel the Super Hornet deal and proceed immediately to a competition to buy permanent replacements for the CF-18s.

Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, said the government is continuing with its negotiations on the Super Hornets. “The Royal Canadian Air Force faces a significant challenge because it does not have the number of fighter aircraft available to meet Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations if called to do so simultaneously,” Owens said.

Critics, including the Conservatives and some retired officers, have disputed that position and questioned whether there is such a gap.

The Liberals have reversed their position somewhat on the F-35. They now say they will hold an open competition for the permanent fleet of fighter jets and that Lockheed Martin is welcome to propose the F-35.

Hawn: Choosing Super Hornet will Ground Canada's Air Force

By: Lt.-Col. (Retired) Hon. Laurie Hawn, The Ottawa Citizen 

“Per Ardua Ad Dis-Astra.” This altered RCAF motto sums up what the federal the government’s convoluted process to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets to fill a “capability gap” really means. It will kill Canada’s fighter force.

Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work.

His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created “capability gap.” That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft.

Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored.

We don’t have technicians and support capacity for today. Eighteen Super Hornets will cost about $7 billion Cdn and add 350 non-existent personnel and Super Hornet-specific infrastructure. We are already losing pilots to voluntary release at rates we can’t re-generate, and we certainly don’t have extras for the Super Hornet.

Many real experts were never consulted, and 240 were forced to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which hides the truth. The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer should take an interest.

Competitions don’t take five years, and to satisfy everyone, we need to start one immediately. Denmark did one quickly, and Canada already has a (now suppressed) options analysis that points to the F-35. As in the past, the F-35 will win any competition not rigged against it.

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft for its roles and time, but we need a fighter for projected threats into the 2050s. The Super Hornet also has a thorny safety issue in its oxygen system, which has resulted in 297 incidents and permanent grounding for some aircrews.

One argument that doesn’t stand up is that the F-35 doesn’t work. Its operational development continues and in every exercise where F-35 participates, its effectiveness is very evident. In our own primary aim of air sovereignty, the F-35’s clean configuration will allow it to conduct higher-altitude intercepts that the Super Hornet cannot.

Another argument that doesn’t stand up is cost. The latest cost for the F-35A is $8.5 billion US for 90 aircraft, or $94.6 million per aircraft. But as predicted, that cost will continue to decrease and in 2020, when we should start receiving our aircraft, it will be about $85 Million. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet will not be interim. Even if the F-35 were to win a competition, we would suddenly realize that we can’t afford two small fleets, due to duplication of everything. That will apply to the Super Hornet and CF-18, and assuredly to the Super Hornet and F-35. The Aussies are doing it, but we are not them, and we would be stuck buying more Super Hornets.

Canadian aerospace industries, jobs and the economy will also be losers on our current path. We will lose out on billions in contracts and be out of step with future technology. This will be an industry-killing Avro Arrow redux and/or a costly Sea King redux.

We cannot afford to continue on the current path for many reasons: Canadian sovereignty and security, taxpayers, technical, personnel, moral, commonality with allies and Canadian industry. I have received virtually unanimous support for my position, most importantly from members of the RCAF at all rank levels.
----
Lt.-Col. (Retired) Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD is a former RCAF CF-18 Squadron Commander and member of Parliament.

Former MP and RCAF Pilot Hawn Expresses his concerns over Super Hornet Stop-Gap

By: Laurie Hawn. PC, CD (Lt. Col Ret) 

Speaking truth to power can be risky...

I re-confirmed that this week by speaking out rather more forcefully than was appreciated to the Commander of the RCAF and the Chief of the Defence Staff, on the issue of the CF-18 replacement. This is a condensation of some of my main points, and I know that senior military leaders have their hands tied. As followers will know, I have been very critical of the 100% politically motivated plan to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets for some time and the story only gets worse.

We could fill the fabricated “capability gap” with 27 F-18C/D aircraft from Kuwait at the bargain basement price of $330 million, but we’re not pursuing it. We could also upgrade our 76 CF-18s to Super Hornet system status for about 20% of what it will cost us to buy 18 Super Hornets. Rather than pursue either of those options, we’d rather waste about USD 5.4 Billion on 18 aircraft with no real increase in capability. The cost of 90 F-35As will be USD 8.5 Billion (USD 94.6 million per) in the latest contract; and that unit cost will come down to USD 85 million by the time we should be receiving our first aircraft about 2020. What is wrong with this picture?

The F-18C is virtually identical to our CF-18s, while the Super Hornet is very different in size, radar, engines, mission computers and other systems. We don’t have the qualified technicians, pilots and support capacity to manage our current fleet; and adding a dissimilar fleet will make a very difficult job impossible. We are losing pilots to release at a rate that is unsustainable, and there is no ether that we can dip into to hive off more to get trained on the Super Hornet.

Neither the CF-18 nor Super Hornet actually has the kinematics to properly execute our primary mission of peacetime air sovereignty, with commercial aircraft operating above 40,000 feet. F-35 can properly execute that mission, and many more. The real experts were not consulted and, in fact, 240 of them have been muzzled with lifetime non-disclosure agreements. Why would a government with nothing to hide do that? The answer is that they wouldn’t, and this government has a lot to hide. It would be nice if the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner would take an interest. The options analysis that was conducted and clearly showed F-35 to be the answer has been suppressed, because it didn’t conform to the Prime Minister’s foolish and inaccurate statements during and since the 2015 campaign. And you thought that Donald Trump was the only purveyor of “alternate facts”.

Super Hornet also has serious safety concerns with the oxygen system that has resulted in 297 (reported) incidents that have resulted in the permanent grounding of some aircrew. Can we afford that and has anyone done a risk analysis of operating Super Hornet?

An open and fair competition could be started tomorrow and take no more than a year; but the government wants to kick the can down the road until after the next election. If the Statement of Requirements (SOR) is not “modified” to eliminate F-35, that aircraft would win any fair competition, just as it has in so many other cases. There’s good reason to believe that the SOR is being “massaged”. There will be nothing interim about a Super Hornet buy. Even if F-35 were to win a rigged competition, the sudden realization will be that, “Gosh, we just cannot afford a mixed fleet and we’ll just have to buy more Super Hornets.” The first part of that statement would be correct – we cannot afford a mixed fleet of Super Hornet and F-35 down the road, just as we cannot afford a mixed fleet of CF-18 and Super Hornet today.

The latest bit of insanity is that we are looking at buying two-seat Super Hornets and putting navigators in the back seat as Weapons System Operators (WSO). Our primary mission is air defence and there are no two-seat air defence fighters in the world today. There is a reason for that - navigators in fighters and many other applications have been overtaken by technology years ago. To be sure, fighter pilots will also eventually be overtaken by technology; but for the next few decades they have a job to do. We have no capacity to train WSOs, even if someone did invent a reason to want to do so.

The bottom line is that we can’t afford to do what we’re doing for a wide variety of reasons – Canadian sovereignty and security, financial, technical, personnel, moral, alliance support, Canadian industry, etc. If we carry on, I firmly believe and many others share my belief that we will kill the fighter force. I simply can’t support that and my conscience will not let me stay silent and be deemed complicit by that silence. I have been in and around the RCAF for 53 years and it is soul destroying to see what is happening in the name of politics. As anticipated, my vocal opposition to the plan was not well received by the most senior leadership of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces. I was asked to resign my position of Honourary Colonel of 401 Tactical Fighter Squadron (the oldest Squadron in the RCAF, 20 Nov 1918). That, I dutifully did, but since I’m not important enough to have a sword, I just fell on my pen-knife.

I will continue to advocate for what I think is in the best interests of the RCAF, Canada, our aerospace industry AND taxpayers. Most Canadians may not really care about Super Hornet versus F-35, but I think they do care about the waste of billions of dollars for very little return, especially if it’s purely in the name of politics.

F-35 Dominates At Red Flag With 15:1 Kill Rate

Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report - Aviation Week 

The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A made its debut at the toughest Red Flag yet, and not only dominated the air space but made the legacy aircraft in the force package even deadlier, according to pilots.

The F-35’s participation in the Air Force’s capstone training event at Nellis AFB, Nevada, which is known as one of the world’s most realistic and challenging air-to-air combat exercises, marked a crucial test for the fifth-generation fighter. This year, pilots went up against the most aggressive threat laydown ever seen at a Red Flag: more surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), more jamming, and more red air, said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander.
The exercise began Jan. 23 and will continue until Feb. 10.

Despite the stepped up threat, pilots lost only one F-35 to every 15 aggressors killed in action—an impressive kill ratio for an aircraft that is not designed as an air-to-air fighter.
Where before an F-16 would not even see the advanced threat on the battlespace—the blue forces would take them out ahead of time with standoff weapons—now with the F-35 added to the mix, pilots can detect and pinpoint multiple threats at once, Watkins said.

Faced with three or four different advanced SAMs in one scenario, F-35 pilots gather and fuse data from a multitude of sources. Then the stealthy aircraft slips undetected within range and takes out the threat. If the F-35 runs out of munitions, F-22 and fourth-generation pilots still want the aircraft to stay in the vicinity, vacuuming up targeting information and transferring it to the rest of the force.
“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time,” Watkins said. “Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now.”

The F-35 and the air superiority F-22, in particular, make a deadly team, the pilots said.
“When you pair the F-22and the F-35 like together with the fourth-generation strikers behind us, we’re really able to dominate the air space over the Nellis test and training range,” Watkins said.

As of Feb. 3, 13 F-35s from Hill AFB, Utah, had flown 126 missions and only lost three or four aircraft. They had not lost a single sortie to maintenance. Although there have been issues with the F-35’s 3i software load—the aircraft’s systems occasionally shut down and need to be rebooted and there were also problems with clutter and repeating targets—none of the aircraft at Red Flag have experienced any system failures. That is a huge improvement over the F-16s, Watkins said.

“It’s been pretty eye-watering here for me to go out every day and have every single mission system operating,” Watkins said. “Tie that sensor fusion and that situational awareness with the survivability of the platform [and] it’s really a game-changer.”