By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan continues to insist that the capability gap, supposed to be filled by the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets as an interim fighter, will still be dealt with.
The U.S. and Canadian governments are still talking about Super Hornets, although the Liberals have cut off Boeing from any discussions.
The Liberal government has taken that action in retaliation for a trade complaint that Boeing has filed with the Trump administration concerning what it claims is unfair subsidies awarded to Bombardier on its CSeries civilian aircraft production.
During his recent appearance at a defence and aerospace conference in Abbotsford, BC, Sajjan the Liberal government has “many other options, so that we can fill this capability gap.”
He, however, didn’t get into details.
“No decision has been made,” he added. “Discussions are still ongoing.”
But there have been suggestions in some quarters of the aerospace industry that the Liberals were considering the purchase of second-hand fighter jets to fill the gap.
Sajjan addressed that issue….somewhat.
“I’d prefer to buy brand new versus – versus used, but we are currently in the process, and we’ll make a decision to making sure that our members in the Canadian Armed Forces have the right tools necessary,” he said.
Showing posts with label RCAF Capability Gap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCAF Capability Gap. Show all posts
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Monday, March 27, 2017
RCAF CF-18's to Deploy to Iceland and Romania in 2017
By: Murray Brewster, CBC News
A flight of six CF-18 jet fighters will soon depart for Iceland in one of two overseas missions this year in a show of solidarity with NATO allies.
Coming out of last year's Warsaw Summit, the Trudeau government committed to deploying an air task force as part of a range of measures meant to check Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe.
It has not, until now, confirmed any details.
Canada's aging CF-18s will conduct unarmed patrols out of Iceland for several weeks, beginning in late May. That will be followed in September by another air policing mission in Romania, defence officials confirmed to CBC News.
A flight of six CF-18 jet fighters will soon depart for Iceland in one of two overseas missions this year in a show of solidarity with NATO allies.
Coming out of last year's Warsaw Summit, the Trudeau government committed to deploying an air task force as part of a range of measures meant to check Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe.
It has not, until now, confirmed any details.
Canada's aging CF-18s will conduct unarmed patrols out of Iceland for several weeks, beginning in late May. That will be followed in September by another air policing mission in Romania, defence officials confirmed to CBC News.
 |
| Keflavik, Iceland, 5 April 2013 – CF-18 jets fly over Iceland during Operation IGNITION 2013. (photo by Corporal Pierre Habib, 3 Wing Bagotville) |
Related:
Majority of CF-18s will fly beyond 'certified safe life': internal report
Air force warned readiness of fighter fleet was declining back in 2014
The deployments are the first major overseas missions since the Liberal government raised alarm last spring about what they described as a "capability gap" within the fighter fleet.
They are concerned about the air force having enough serviceable fighters to conduct both NATO and Norad (North American Aerospace Defence Command) missions concurrently.
A spokesperson for the military's strategic joint staff says the situation is in hand.
"The RCAF is actively risk-managing the capability gap to simultaneously meet our Norad and NATO commitments," said Capt. Patricia Brunelle.
The deployment also comes after the release of internal documents showing the military was concerned as far back as three years ago that the combat readiness of its front-line fighter fleet was declining because of fewer training hours and lean maintenance budgets under the former Conservative government.
Russia and NATO
The fact the Liberal government has chosen to conduct back-to-back fighter deployments speaks volumes, a defence expert said.
Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said it could be a sign that the Liberal government is more concerned about the strategic threat posed by Russia than it lets on.
There is also the possibility it is a post-budget signal for the Trump administration, which has demanded NATO allies meet the alliance's two per cent gross domestic product spending target.
"You could look at this and say it's part of the government walking the talk about how we don't spend a lot but we do contribute operationally," said Perry.
"I think there is a strategic threat and we should be reinforcing the alliance. Whether or not it is politics, I can't say."
Iceland has no air force
The Liberal government's recent budget offered only a slight increase in operational spending for the military but withdrew $8.4 billion in planned capital spending — money that is supposed to be put back at a later date.
Brunelle says the department will make a formal announcement soon about the size and scope of the deployment. But defence sources told CBC News it will involve six fighters and up to 160 personnel, which is similar to the contingent that deployed on the same missions in 2011 and 2013.
Since 2008, NATO allies have taken turns flying fighters for two month stints out of Iceland, a country of just over 300,000 people which does not have an air force. The patrols are co-ordinated with the Icelandic coast guard.
The Italian air force is currently conducting flight operations out of Keflavik Air Base, outside Reykjavik, with six Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
The U.S. has been conducting anti-submarine patrols out of the same base since last year at the same time experts had warned that Russian undersea activity in the North Atlantic had hit levels not seen since the Cold War.
Canada's NATO contributions
There will be no overlap between the missions in Iceland and Romania, said Brunelle.
"The missions will be one after the other and not concurrently," she said.
"There will be several months of gap between the two missions that aims to conduct periodic surveillance and air policing operations in NATO areas of responsibility and participate in joint training activities with other nations."
Canadian fighters have conducted at least two deployments to Romania — in 2014 and 2016 — following an increase in tension related to Russia's annexation of Crimea. They have also conducted air policing missions in the Baltic region, where the army is preparing to deploy 450 soldiers to lead a NATO battle group.
Air force warned readiness of fighter fleet was declining back in 2014
The deployments are the first major overseas missions since the Liberal government raised alarm last spring about what they described as a "capability gap" within the fighter fleet.
They are concerned about the air force having enough serviceable fighters to conduct both NATO and Norad (North American Aerospace Defence Command) missions concurrently.
A spokesperson for the military's strategic joint staff says the situation is in hand.
"The RCAF is actively risk-managing the capability gap to simultaneously meet our Norad and NATO commitments," said Capt. Patricia Brunelle.
The deployment also comes after the release of internal documents showing the military was concerned as far back as three years ago that the combat readiness of its front-line fighter fleet was declining because of fewer training hours and lean maintenance budgets under the former Conservative government.
Russia and NATO
The fact the Liberal government has chosen to conduct back-to-back fighter deployments speaks volumes, a defence expert said.
Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said it could be a sign that the Liberal government is more concerned about the strategic threat posed by Russia than it lets on.
There is also the possibility it is a post-budget signal for the Trump administration, which has demanded NATO allies meet the alliance's two per cent gross domestic product spending target.
"You could look at this and say it's part of the government walking the talk about how we don't spend a lot but we do contribute operationally," said Perry.
"I think there is a strategic threat and we should be reinforcing the alliance. Whether or not it is politics, I can't say."
Iceland has no air force
The Liberal government's recent budget offered only a slight increase in operational spending for the military but withdrew $8.4 billion in planned capital spending — money that is supposed to be put back at a later date.
Brunelle says the department will make a formal announcement soon about the size and scope of the deployment. But defence sources told CBC News it will involve six fighters and up to 160 personnel, which is similar to the contingent that deployed on the same missions in 2011 and 2013.
Since 2008, NATO allies have taken turns flying fighters for two month stints out of Iceland, a country of just over 300,000 people which does not have an air force. The patrols are co-ordinated with the Icelandic coast guard.
The Italian air force is currently conducting flight operations out of Keflavik Air Base, outside Reykjavik, with six Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
The U.S. has been conducting anti-submarine patrols out of the same base since last year at the same time experts had warned that Russian undersea activity in the North Atlantic had hit levels not seen since the Cold War.
Canada's NATO contributions
There will be no overlap between the missions in Iceland and Romania, said Brunelle.
"The missions will be one after the other and not concurrently," she said.
"There will be several months of gap between the two missions that aims to conduct periodic surveillance and air policing operations in NATO areas of responsibility and participate in joint training activities with other nations."
Canadian fighters have conducted at least two deployments to Romania — in 2014 and 2016 — following an increase in tension related to Russia's annexation of Crimea. They have also conducted air policing missions in the Baltic region, where the army is preparing to deploy 450 soldiers to lead a NATO battle group.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Despite "Capability Gap" 8 RCAF CF-18s Deploy to RIMPAC
By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Eight Canadian fighter jets have been deployed on a massive training exercise in the Pacific, despite Liberal government warnings the country does not have enough such aircraft to defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO.
The government says the month-long exercise is critical for training Canadian fighter pilots to work alongside allies — and the planes will return to Canada immediately if they are needed.
But the Conservatives say their involvement proves Liberal claims of a fighter-jet shortage aren't true.
The eight CF-18s arrived in Hawaii at the beginning of July as part of Canada's contribution to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise, or RIMPAC, which has been billed as one of the largest military exercises in the world. Canada is among 27 countries participating in the U.S.-led exercise, which takes place every two years.
The fighter jets are expected to remain in the region until July 29. Canada also has four naval ships, six helicopters, two refuelling aircraft, a surveillance plane and more than 1,500 military personnel participating in RIMPAC.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, said the air contingent is the largest ever for Canada in the Pacific. The exercise gives Canadian pilots the opportunity to operate together and also to work alongside counterparts from traditional and non-traditional allies throughout the Pacific region, she said.
"We need to train pilots, and they have this opportunity to train with more than 20 other countries," Owens said. "This is essential for having a combat-capable air force."
Yet Sajjan warned earlier this month that only about half of the Royal Canadian Air Force's 77 CF-18s are available for operations at any given time, which was not enough to meet Canada's commitments to NATO and North American defence.
"Today, the number of mission-ready aircraft we can deploy on an average day is actually less than the number of planes we are committed to have ready," Sajjan said on July 9, as he reiterated the need to purchase a replacement fighter jet quickly.
Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the CF-18s' involvement at RIMPAC is evidence the Liberals have made up talk the military is dealing with a shortage of fighter jets to purchase a new plane without a competition.
"It proves the fact Canada can do not just our NORAD and NATO missions, but we can do these exercises as well," he said. "Anything Minister Sajjan is saying now about a capability gap is a complete fabrication."
But Owens said the CF-18s' involvement in RIMPAC highlights the difficult work the air force has been doing to manage that shortage of fighter jets. If the aircraft are needed somewhere else before RIMPAC ends, she added, "they would leave."
The question of whether the military is really dealing with a shortage of fighter jets has become central to the debate that has raged for years over which aircraft Canada should buy to replace its aging CF-18s.
The Liberals say the problem is real and requires a quick solution to ensure Canada is able to meet all its international obligations. Critics, however, have accused the Liberals of manufacturing a crisis to justify buying a new fighter jet other than the F-35 stealth fighter without a competition.
The Liberals promised during last year's election that they would hold an open competition to replace the CF-18s. But they also promised not to buy the F-35. This created a potential legal situation if the government was seen to discriminate against the stealth fighter.
Postmedia reported in June that the government was considering whether to use an exemption in federal procurement laws to buy Super Hornets as an "interim" measure to address the capability gap. That would let it sole-source the planes without fear of a lawsuit.
- Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter.
OTTAWA — Eight Canadian fighter jets have been deployed on a massive training exercise in the Pacific, despite Liberal government warnings the country does not have enough such aircraft to defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO.
The government says the month-long exercise is critical for training Canadian fighter pilots to work alongside allies — and the planes will return to Canada immediately if they are needed.
But the Conservatives say their involvement proves Liberal claims of a fighter-jet shortage aren't true.
The eight CF-18s arrived in Hawaii at the beginning of July as part of Canada's contribution to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise, or RIMPAC, which has been billed as one of the largest military exercises in the world. Canada is among 27 countries participating in the U.S.-led exercise, which takes place every two years.
The fighter jets are expected to remain in the region until July 29. Canada also has four naval ships, six helicopters, two refuelling aircraft, a surveillance plane and more than 1,500 military personnel participating in RIMPAC.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, said the air contingent is the largest ever for Canada in the Pacific. The exercise gives Canadian pilots the opportunity to operate together and also to work alongside counterparts from traditional and non-traditional allies throughout the Pacific region, she said.
"We need to train pilots, and they have this opportunity to train with more than 20 other countries," Owens said. "This is essential for having a combat-capable air force."
Yet Sajjan warned earlier this month that only about half of the Royal Canadian Air Force's 77 CF-18s are available for operations at any given time, which was not enough to meet Canada's commitments to NATO and North American defence.
"Today, the number of mission-ready aircraft we can deploy on an average day is actually less than the number of planes we are committed to have ready," Sajjan said on July 9, as he reiterated the need to purchase a replacement fighter jet quickly.
Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the CF-18s' involvement at RIMPAC is evidence the Liberals have made up talk the military is dealing with a shortage of fighter jets to purchase a new plane without a competition.
"It proves the fact Canada can do not just our NORAD and NATO missions, but we can do these exercises as well," he said. "Anything Minister Sajjan is saying now about a capability gap is a complete fabrication."
But Owens said the CF-18s' involvement in RIMPAC highlights the difficult work the air force has been doing to manage that shortage of fighter jets. If the aircraft are needed somewhere else before RIMPAC ends, she added, "they would leave."
The question of whether the military is really dealing with a shortage of fighter jets has become central to the debate that has raged for years over which aircraft Canada should buy to replace its aging CF-18s.
The Liberals say the problem is real and requires a quick solution to ensure Canada is able to meet all its international obligations. Critics, however, have accused the Liberals of manufacturing a crisis to justify buying a new fighter jet other than the F-35 stealth fighter without a competition.
The Liberals promised during last year's election that they would hold an open competition to replace the CF-18s. But they also promised not to buy the F-35. This created a potential legal situation if the government was seen to discriminate against the stealth fighter.
Postmedia reported in June that the government was considering whether to use an exemption in federal procurement laws to buy Super Hornets as an "interim" measure to address the capability gap. That would let it sole-source the planes without fear of a lawsuit.
- Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Dogfight: Breaking down Procurement of Canada's next Fighter Jet
DANIEL LEBLANC
Ottawa - The Globe and Mail
It’s getting harder and harder to figure out who is the underdog and who is the favourite in the dogfight between the Lockheed-Martin F-35 and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.
From 2006 to 2012, the new-kid-on-the-block F-35 was the federal government’s one and only choice to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18s. The Conservatives were in power at that point, but the process to select the fighter of the future had started in 2001, under the previous Liberal regime.
Everything fell apart in 2012 when the Auditor-General slammed the acquisition process for the F-35 as risky and uncompetitive, forcing the Tories to put the procurement process on hold.
By the time the 2015 election came, the Liberals made a clear promise: They would not buy the F-35. Instead, Justin Trudeau proclaimed, a Liberal government would launch an “open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.”
Left unsaid was what would happen if the F-35 were to win that competition. To square that circle, there are now those in the Liberal Party who argue that a competition would be a waste of time and that the best solution is simply to buy another aircraft: the Super Hornet.
Has the long-time underdog – the older, less technologically advanced fighter jet – now become the favourite in the race to replace the CF-18? Or is this simply a bump in the road for Lockheed-Martin, which first won a competition 15 years ago to produce the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for allies such as the United States, Britain and Canada?
The Liberals are promising a speedy decision on the replacement for the CF-18. Here is a look at the two aircraft now involved in a lobbying duel that is set to ramp up a notch before the winner flies off into the sunset.
They repeatedly point to a recent competition in Denmark that directly pitted the F-35 against the Super Hornet. In the four ranking areas, the F-35 finished first. It was not only the best aircraft in terms of military and strategic performances, but also the best on cost per plane and industrial spinoffs, according to the Danes. Given that Denmark was looking for an aircraft to protect Greenland, Lockheed-Martin argues, this sets a great precedent for the Canadian Forces, which are looking for a fighter to patrol in the Arctic.
Steve Over, an engineer and senior member of the F-35 team, said there is a “quantum leap in capability” between the F-35 and all other Western fighters. Radars, sensors and communications devices between aircraft provide pilots with an “omniscient perspective of their battle space” that is unrivalled in the world, Mr. Over added.
Lockheed-Martin and the various partners in the JSF program will continue to upgrade the F-35 in coming decades, helping to keep up with rival countries that threaten Canada’s sovereignty, he said.
“In 10 to 15 years, fourth-generation fighters [like the Super Hornet] will be absolutely inferior to the fleets of fighters that the Russians and Chinese are fielding,” he said. “If you don’t fear conflict with these nations, what you should fear is that they are going to proliferate that equipment to any nation with the money to buy it.”
The F-35 underwent a number of teething pains in recent years, including production delays and cost overruns, as well as problems with pilot helmets, engines and ejection seats.
“It’s a development airplane, but we’re almost through the development program,” Mr. Over said.
While Mr. Trudeau has dismissed the F-35 as an aircraft that “doesn’t work,” Lockheed-Martin said it is ready to “go to war” with the U.S. Marine Corps and will receive the same certification from the U.S. Air Force later this year.
There should be more than 200 F-35s in the air by the end of the year, and more than 600 by 2020, at which point Canada could start to build its new fleet.
“All the milestones are ticking off,” Mr. Over said. “This airplane, make no mistake about it, is a mature airplane.”
“If I told you that I am and want to be a market leader in the fighter business, you all would tell me that I’m an idiot,” she said in an interview published in Aviation Week. “Let’s be real clear: We lost JSF.”
The hat tip to Lockheed-Martin gave a sense that the Boeing Super Hornet, which made its first flight in 1995, is in the final stages of its life cycle. Competitors jumped in, questioning whether the Super Hornet will still be a top-notch fighter in two or three decades if Boeing doesn’t stand behind its aircraft.
Boeing test pilot Ricardo Traven (who flew CF-18s in his time in the Canadian Forces) said the reality is that the Super Hornet is at the top of its game and ready to help Canada right away.
“We’re in our prime,” he said in an interview. “In terms of customers buying or flying the plane, we’re not getting out of the business. We’re still supporting the CF-18, and we’re going to support the navy for decades to come.”
Designed initially to serve with the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 Super Hornet is perfectly suited to serve in the Canadian Arctic, with two engines (instead of one on the F-35) and robust landing gear for icy strips, Mr. Traven said.
He added that the CF-18 and the Super Hornet share many similar characteristics, and that the transition to a new fleet would be easy and less costly in terms of training and maintenance.
“It’s everything that the CF-18 is, on steroids. That’s why I know the pilots are absolutely going to love that air frame,” Mr. Traven said.
Boeing has delivered 709 Super Hornets and Growlers (a variant of the Super Hornet) to the U.S. Navy and Australia, “all on cost and on schedule,” the company said. If the Canadian Forces decide to call on the aircraft to complement or replace their CF-18s, Mr. Traven said, “we’re 100 per cent capable, right now.”
The government’s options
The federal government originally purchased nearly 140 CF-18 fighters, which started starting to enter into service in 1982. Today, there are 77 left in operation, including four that have flown for more than 7,000 hours and 46 that have between 6,000 and 7,000 flying hours.
To last into 2025, the fighter jets will need to be upgraded.
For now, the Department of National Defence said it is increasingly scrambling to meet its international commitments.
“The total number of aircraft the government of Canada has committed to NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defence Command] and to NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization] is greater than the number of mission-ready aircraft we can put into the sky on an average day,” said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sajjan.
“This government finds that unacceptable. With any aircraft fleet, especially one as old as ours, there are a number of planes in maintenance at any given time. The Royal Canadian Air Force does a good job risk managing this capability gap. But our confidence in their ability to risk manage does not mean we should delay addressing the problem. Risk managing the situation allows us to be good allies. However, as the fleet continues to age, the situation will only get worse.”
“The full spectrum is being looked at,” Patrick Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence, said last week.
While all of Ottawa is in speculation mode, federal officials insist that they are exploring all possibilities to buy new fighter jets.
Mr. Finn, speaking to a House of Commons committee, made it clear that his boss, National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is using his police interrogation skills to ensure that he knows everything he needs about the file. “Our minister has asked us many questions about approaches, products, how it could be done, what could be done, to make sure he has all of the information that he needs to bring to his colleagues,” he said.
Sources said the matter is in front of a seven-member cabinet committee, which will eventually take the matter to the full cabinet. Here are the options facing the government, according to procurement experts:
Launch an open and transparent competition based on existing DND requirements. However, there is a possibility this could lead to an automatic victory for the more-modern F-35, as a number of defence experts have said the existing requirements can be met only by the stealth aircraft. “It is not only the aircraft that best meets Canadian Forces’ requirements, with the longest life expectancy, but also is the most affordable,” National Defence said of the F-35 in 2006.
Launch a competition based on new requirements. Redrafting the requirements could be a lengthy process, but that could be the only way to have a competition that does not lead to an F-35 victory. The government could justify the change by stating that it has different priorities than the previous government – for example, putting more emphasis on “the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability,” as stated in last year’s Liberal platform.
Sole-source the contract to one manufacturer for a new fleet. According to Treasury Board rules, the government would have to invoke a “pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest” to avoid going to tenders. However, it would also have to explain why it feels that one manufacturer, such as Boeing, can offer the best new aircraft instead of, for example, Lockheed-Martin.
Sole-source a contract for an interim fleet. Such a move would be a half-step, and would push other decisions and costs down the road. For starters, buying an interim fleet would force the government to launch an eventual competition or award a second sole-source contract for the rest of the fleet. It would also open up the possibility of a “mixed fleet” featuring two types of fighter jets in the Canadian Forces – which experts say is more costly to maintain than a single fleet.
It’s getting harder and harder to figure out who is the underdog and who is the favourite in the dogfight between the Lockheed-Martin F-35 and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.
From 2006 to 2012, the new-kid-on-the-block F-35 was the federal government’s one and only choice to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18s. The Conservatives were in power at that point, but the process to select the fighter of the future had started in 2001, under the previous Liberal regime.
Everything fell apart in 2012 when the Auditor-General slammed the acquisition process for the F-35 as risky and uncompetitive, forcing the Tories to put the procurement process on hold.
By the time the 2015 election came, the Liberals made a clear promise: They would not buy the F-35. Instead, Justin Trudeau proclaimed, a Liberal government would launch an “open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.”
Left unsaid was what would happen if the F-35 were to win that competition. To square that circle, there are now those in the Liberal Party who argue that a competition would be a waste of time and that the best solution is simply to buy another aircraft: the Super Hornet.
Has the long-time underdog – the older, less technologically advanced fighter jet – now become the favourite in the race to replace the CF-18? Or is this simply a bump in the road for Lockheed-Martin, which first won a competition 15 years ago to produce the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for allies such as the United States, Britain and Canada?
The Liberals are promising a speedy decision on the replacement for the CF-18. Here is a look at the two aircraft now involved in a lobbying duel that is set to ramp up a notch before the winner flies off into the sunset.
The F-35
Asked whether they would be willing to compete for the $9-billion contract for 65 fighter jets, officials at Lockheed-Martin have one message: Bring it on. |
| Source: Graphics Live; U.S. Department od Defense Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program; Lockheed-MartinTRISH MCALASTER/THE GLOBE AND MAIL |
Steve Over, an engineer and senior member of the F-35 team, said there is a “quantum leap in capability” between the F-35 and all other Western fighters. Radars, sensors and communications devices between aircraft provide pilots with an “omniscient perspective of their battle space” that is unrivalled in the world, Mr. Over added.
Lockheed-Martin and the various partners in the JSF program will continue to upgrade the F-35 in coming decades, helping to keep up with rival countries that threaten Canada’s sovereignty, he said.
“In 10 to 15 years, fourth-generation fighters [like the Super Hornet] will be absolutely inferior to the fleets of fighters that the Russians and Chinese are fielding,” he said. “If you don’t fear conflict with these nations, what you should fear is that they are going to proliferate that equipment to any nation with the money to buy it.”
The F-35 underwent a number of teething pains in recent years, including production delays and cost overruns, as well as problems with pilot helmets, engines and ejection seats.
“It’s a development airplane, but we’re almost through the development program,” Mr. Over said.
While Mr. Trudeau has dismissed the F-35 as an aircraft that “doesn’t work,” Lockheed-Martin said it is ready to “go to war” with the U.S. Marine Corps and will receive the same certification from the U.S. Air Force later this year.
There should be more than 200 F-35s in the air by the end of the year, and more than 600 by 2020, at which point Canada could start to build its new fleet.
“All the milestones are ticking off,” Mr. Over said. “This airplane, make no mistake about it, is a mature airplane.”
The Super Hornet
Her remarks weren’t intended for a domestic audience, but Boeing executive vice-president Leanne Caret threw cold water on her Canadian team when she recently signaled that her company’s defence division was moving away from fighter jets. |
| Source: Graphics Live; BoeingTRISH MCALASTER/THE GLOBE AND MAIL |
The hat tip to Lockheed-Martin gave a sense that the Boeing Super Hornet, which made its first flight in 1995, is in the final stages of its life cycle. Competitors jumped in, questioning whether the Super Hornet will still be a top-notch fighter in two or three decades if Boeing doesn’t stand behind its aircraft.
Boeing test pilot Ricardo Traven (who flew CF-18s in his time in the Canadian Forces) said the reality is that the Super Hornet is at the top of its game and ready to help Canada right away.
“We’re in our prime,” he said in an interview. “In terms of customers buying or flying the plane, we’re not getting out of the business. We’re still supporting the CF-18, and we’re going to support the navy for decades to come.”
Designed initially to serve with the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 Super Hornet is perfectly suited to serve in the Canadian Arctic, with two engines (instead of one on the F-35) and robust landing gear for icy strips, Mr. Traven said.
He added that the CF-18 and the Super Hornet share many similar characteristics, and that the transition to a new fleet would be easy and less costly in terms of training and maintenance.
“It’s everything that the CF-18 is, on steroids. That’s why I know the pilots are absolutely going to love that air frame,” Mr. Traven said.
Boeing has delivered 709 Super Hornets and Growlers (a variant of the Super Hornet) to the U.S. Navy and Australia, “all on cost and on schedule,” the company said. If the Canadian Forces decide to call on the aircraft to complement or replace their CF-18s, Mr. Traven said, “we’re 100 per cent capable, right now.”
The government’s options
The Capability gap
National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is increasingly invoking a “capability gap” to explain the urgent need for new fighters. The concept is not universally acknowledged in academic and defence circles, but Mr. Sajjan said it is a simple fact, given the age of Canada’s fleet of CF-18s.The federal government originally purchased nearly 140 CF-18 fighters, which started starting to enter into service in 1982. Today, there are 77 left in operation, including four that have flown for more than 7,000 hours and 46 that have between 6,000 and 7,000 flying hours.
To last into 2025, the fighter jets will need to be upgraded.
For now, the Department of National Defence said it is increasingly scrambling to meet its international commitments.
“The total number of aircraft the government of Canada has committed to NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defence Command] and to NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization] is greater than the number of mission-ready aircraft we can put into the sky on an average day,” said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sajjan.
“This government finds that unacceptable. With any aircraft fleet, especially one as old as ours, there are a number of planes in maintenance at any given time. The Royal Canadian Air Force does a good job risk managing this capability gap. But our confidence in their ability to risk manage does not mean we should delay addressing the problem. Risk managing the situation allows us to be good allies. However, as the fleet continues to age, the situation will only get worse.”
“The full spectrum is being looked at,” Patrick Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence, said last week.
While all of Ottawa is in speculation mode, federal officials insist that they are exploring all possibilities to buy new fighter jets.
Mr. Finn, speaking to a House of Commons committee, made it clear that his boss, National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is using his police interrogation skills to ensure that he knows everything he needs about the file. “Our minister has asked us many questions about approaches, products, how it could be done, what could be done, to make sure he has all of the information that he needs to bring to his colleagues,” he said.
Sources said the matter is in front of a seven-member cabinet committee, which will eventually take the matter to the full cabinet. Here are the options facing the government, according to procurement experts:
Launch an open and transparent competition based on existing DND requirements. However, there is a possibility this could lead to an automatic victory for the more-modern F-35, as a number of defence experts have said the existing requirements can be met only by the stealth aircraft. “It is not only the aircraft that best meets Canadian Forces’ requirements, with the longest life expectancy, but also is the most affordable,” National Defence said of the F-35 in 2006.
Launch a competition based on new requirements. Redrafting the requirements could be a lengthy process, but that could be the only way to have a competition that does not lead to an F-35 victory. The government could justify the change by stating that it has different priorities than the previous government – for example, putting more emphasis on “the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability,” as stated in last year’s Liberal platform.
Sole-source the contract to one manufacturer for a new fleet. According to Treasury Board rules, the government would have to invoke a “pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest” to avoid going to tenders. However, it would also have to explain why it feels that one manufacturer, such as Boeing, can offer the best new aircraft instead of, for example, Lockheed-Martin.
Sole-source a contract for an interim fleet. Such a move would be a half-step, and would push other decisions and costs down the road. For starters, buying an interim fleet would force the government to launch an eventual competition or award a second sole-source contract for the rest of the fleet. It would also open up the possibility of a “mixed fleet” featuring two types of fighter jets in the Canadian Forces – which experts say is more costly to maintain than a single fleet.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Openness, Transparency…and “Interim” Super Hornets?
By: The CDA Institute
CDA and CDA Institute CEO Tony Battista and Research Manager and Senior Editor David McDonough comment on the government’s apparent interest in procuring Super Hornets as an interim measure against a perceived capability gap.
Many expect the government’s Defence Policy Review (DPR) process will conclude with a new Defence Policy early next year. But, even in the midst of these public consultations, one can detect hints at the government’s plans and priorities – from reports that the government is not planning on cutting either personnel numbers or military bases to rumours (and potential ‘leaks’) that it plans on purchasing the Super Hornet as an ‘interim measure’ before a final decision on the CF-18 fighter replacement.
These important details provide some tantalizing hints at the government’s approach to defence matters. On the issue of personnel and bases, it raises questions on how the government expects to recapitalize the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and particularly fleet-replacement for both its navy and air force, without significantly increasing funding levels or recalibrating personnel numbers or rethinking basing infrastructure.
When it comes to the Super Hornets, one needs to ask serious questions on the extent to which there really is animminent capability gap – something seemingly refuted by the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, at a Parliamentary committee earlier this year. Of course, one should add the caveat that much depends on retaining current CF-18 modernization plans designed to keep them in the air until 2025, as well as the timeliness of the eventual fighter replacement itself. Ultimately, this raises questions on the need for Super Hornets as an interim or “bridging” solution in the first place (the number being bandied about ranging from 25 to 30, although it could well be even more), to say nothing about the broader implications of such a decision.
If only an interim measure, we’d be wasting resources to fill a purported imminent capability gap that has yet to arise – with little explanation on or rationale for why the Super Hornet was selected at this particular moment in time (especially with the F-35 finally now in or on the cusp of achieving the so-called “sweet spot” of its production run, with attendant low per unit costs). If the Super Hornets are here to stay, the RCAF would either be forced to operate a mixed fleet, or alternatively have much less leeway to select a different platform as a permanent replacement for the CF-18. Either possibility is worrisome. A mixed-fleet is an expensive proposition, as noted by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Summary Report, while the latter possibility would represent a de facto end-run of the government’s own promise to pursue an open competition for the next generation fighter aircraft.
In particular, this latest, apparent ‘leak’ about the Super Hornets – and the government for now staying rather mute about it – is rather puzzling, to say the least! Cabinet decisions do not usually leak out that easily, especially not ones that involve lots of money. So, one might be led to speculate it is a ‘leak’ from somewhere at the top (government) to test the waters. If so, it would seem that a pattern is emerging here, whereby important decisions might be shaped and coming out ahead of the DPR and expected new Defence Policy, through statements and announcements (inadvertently or deliberately), rather than through the systematic, consultative, and open process that the government announced earlier this year.
It is certainly curious that such details emerged in the middle of a public consultation process. One hopes such decisions would only be made upon the completion of these consultations when the actual DPR is being formulated. (Parenthetically, it will be interesting to observe what other ‘hints’ might come out in the coming weeks when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going to the NATO summit in July and likely to make ‘announcements,’ and when he goes to the UN General Assembly in early fall and is expected to make more announcements about “peacekeeping.”)
Of note, the government has been insisting (even before it took power) that it knows how to “govern in a way that is inclusive, transparent, respectful and effective” and to rely on “evidence-based decision-making.” While there may be nothing wrong with the government making quick decisions to equip the Canadian Armed Forces with necessary capabilities, the fact of the matter is that it has promised to be “inclusive, transparent, respectful and effective” and to be in favour of “evidence-based decision-making.”
And the manner by which the Super Hornet interim option has leaked in the midst of public consultations about the DPR, and the extent to which claims about a purported capability gap seemingly contradicts the view of the military leadership, raise questions on whether the government is truly fulfilling its promises here. Canadians, including our extensive list of stakeholders (close to half a million people) and hopefully the Office of the Auditor General, should take note.
Just to be clear, the CDA and CDA Institute do not take positions on specific platforms, like the Super Hornet or the F-35; rather, both organizations focus predominantly on Policy issues, on the Profession of Arms and strategic-level considerations, such as capabilities and mission requirements. The CDA does so through balanced and informed advocacy, while the CDA Institute offers a multitude of distinct voices as part of its educational and awareness emphasis on policy research and informing the public.
Still, it is important to underline that this government has been clear on the need to have transparency, fairness, diligence, and due process in defence procurement decisions, which will shape what the CAF can do for decades into the future. These decisions come with particular responsibility not only from the current government’s mandate, which given its majority electoral win is undoubtedly strong, but also by determining what military tools are available for future governments, irrespective of which political stripe. As such, rather than focusing too narrowly on parochial, electoral or even ‘politicized’ service-specific concerns, the government needs to place the national interest in the heart of its plans for recapitalization – and that the decision on such issues as the fighter aircraft replacement, personnel levels, or basing infrastructure are done in accordance to such broader strategic (and indeed stately) perspective.
Specifically, a next generation fighter capability is required by Canada as part of its overall package to maintain sovereign control over its vast territory – including the Arctic, and its credible share of the defence of the North American continent. Given how successive governments – of both Liberal and Conservative stripes – have opted to contribute fighter aircraft for international military operations, such as over Kosovo in 1999 and more recently in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, Canada also needs a capability that can be used in expeditionary operations abroad, whether in coalitions of the willing or with our traditional Alliance partners. Thus, the need for such a capability should not be in question.
In addition, the government decision to maintain such a capability must also be taken with a number of key considerations in mind, such as overall cost (per unit and operating), interoperability with our major allies (especially theUS Air Force), and capacity to operate in a variety of different threat environments, which may change and evolve (becoming either more benign or perhaps contested) over coming decades. Irrespective of whether the Super Hornet, the F-35, or an altogether different aircraft (e.g., Eurofighter) is ultimately chosen, these considerations need to be foremost in the minds of decision-makers.
Tony Battista is Chief Executive Officer of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) and the CDA Institute.David McDonough is the Research Manager and Senior Editor at the CDA Institute.
CDA and CDA Institute CEO Tony Battista and Research Manager and Senior Editor David McDonough comment on the government’s apparent interest in procuring Super Hornets as an interim measure against a perceived capability gap.
Many expect the government’s Defence Policy Review (DPR) process will conclude with a new Defence Policy early next year. But, even in the midst of these public consultations, one can detect hints at the government’s plans and priorities – from reports that the government is not planning on cutting either personnel numbers or military bases to rumours (and potential ‘leaks’) that it plans on purchasing the Super Hornet as an ‘interim measure’ before a final decision on the CF-18 fighter replacement.
These important details provide some tantalizing hints at the government’s approach to defence matters. On the issue of personnel and bases, it raises questions on how the government expects to recapitalize the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and particularly fleet-replacement for both its navy and air force, without significantly increasing funding levels or recalibrating personnel numbers or rethinking basing infrastructure.
When it comes to the Super Hornets, one needs to ask serious questions on the extent to which there really is animminent capability gap – something seemingly refuted by the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, at a Parliamentary committee earlier this year. Of course, one should add the caveat that much depends on retaining current CF-18 modernization plans designed to keep them in the air until 2025, as well as the timeliness of the eventual fighter replacement itself. Ultimately, this raises questions on the need for Super Hornets as an interim or “bridging” solution in the first place (the number being bandied about ranging from 25 to 30, although it could well be even more), to say nothing about the broader implications of such a decision.
If only an interim measure, we’d be wasting resources to fill a purported imminent capability gap that has yet to arise – with little explanation on or rationale for why the Super Hornet was selected at this particular moment in time (especially with the F-35 finally now in or on the cusp of achieving the so-called “sweet spot” of its production run, with attendant low per unit costs). If the Super Hornets are here to stay, the RCAF would either be forced to operate a mixed fleet, or alternatively have much less leeway to select a different platform as a permanent replacement for the CF-18. Either possibility is worrisome. A mixed-fleet is an expensive proposition, as noted by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Summary Report, while the latter possibility would represent a de facto end-run of the government’s own promise to pursue an open competition for the next generation fighter aircraft.
In particular, this latest, apparent ‘leak’ about the Super Hornets – and the government for now staying rather mute about it – is rather puzzling, to say the least! Cabinet decisions do not usually leak out that easily, especially not ones that involve lots of money. So, one might be led to speculate it is a ‘leak’ from somewhere at the top (government) to test the waters. If so, it would seem that a pattern is emerging here, whereby important decisions might be shaped and coming out ahead of the DPR and expected new Defence Policy, through statements and announcements (inadvertently or deliberately), rather than through the systematic, consultative, and open process that the government announced earlier this year.
It is certainly curious that such details emerged in the middle of a public consultation process. One hopes such decisions would only be made upon the completion of these consultations when the actual DPR is being formulated. (Parenthetically, it will be interesting to observe what other ‘hints’ might come out in the coming weeks when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going to the NATO summit in July and likely to make ‘announcements,’ and when he goes to the UN General Assembly in early fall and is expected to make more announcements about “peacekeeping.”)
Of note, the government has been insisting (even before it took power) that it knows how to “govern in a way that is inclusive, transparent, respectful and effective” and to rely on “evidence-based decision-making.” While there may be nothing wrong with the government making quick decisions to equip the Canadian Armed Forces with necessary capabilities, the fact of the matter is that it has promised to be “inclusive, transparent, respectful and effective” and to be in favour of “evidence-based decision-making.”
And the manner by which the Super Hornet interim option has leaked in the midst of public consultations about the DPR, and the extent to which claims about a purported capability gap seemingly contradicts the view of the military leadership, raise questions on whether the government is truly fulfilling its promises here. Canadians, including our extensive list of stakeholders (close to half a million people) and hopefully the Office of the Auditor General, should take note.
Just to be clear, the CDA and CDA Institute do not take positions on specific platforms, like the Super Hornet or the F-35; rather, both organizations focus predominantly on Policy issues, on the Profession of Arms and strategic-level considerations, such as capabilities and mission requirements. The CDA does so through balanced and informed advocacy, while the CDA Institute offers a multitude of distinct voices as part of its educational and awareness emphasis on policy research and informing the public.
Still, it is important to underline that this government has been clear on the need to have transparency, fairness, diligence, and due process in defence procurement decisions, which will shape what the CAF can do for decades into the future. These decisions come with particular responsibility not only from the current government’s mandate, which given its majority electoral win is undoubtedly strong, but also by determining what military tools are available for future governments, irrespective of which political stripe. As such, rather than focusing too narrowly on parochial, electoral or even ‘politicized’ service-specific concerns, the government needs to place the national interest in the heart of its plans for recapitalization – and that the decision on such issues as the fighter aircraft replacement, personnel levels, or basing infrastructure are done in accordance to such broader strategic (and indeed stately) perspective.
Specifically, a next generation fighter capability is required by Canada as part of its overall package to maintain sovereign control over its vast territory – including the Arctic, and its credible share of the defence of the North American continent. Given how successive governments – of both Liberal and Conservative stripes – have opted to contribute fighter aircraft for international military operations, such as over Kosovo in 1999 and more recently in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, Canada also needs a capability that can be used in expeditionary operations abroad, whether in coalitions of the willing or with our traditional Alliance partners. Thus, the need for such a capability should not be in question.
In addition, the government decision to maintain such a capability must also be taken with a number of key considerations in mind, such as overall cost (per unit and operating), interoperability with our major allies (especially theUS Air Force), and capacity to operate in a variety of different threat environments, which may change and evolve (becoming either more benign or perhaps contested) over coming decades. Irrespective of whether the Super Hornet, the F-35, or an altogether different aircraft (e.g., Eurofighter) is ultimately chosen, these considerations need to be foremost in the minds of decision-makers.
Tony Battista is Chief Executive Officer of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) and the CDA Institute.David McDonough is the Research Manager and Senior Editor at the CDA Institute.
The CF-18 capability gap: Time for some Transparency
By: George Petrolekas, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Published by Globe and Mail
June 15, 2016
On May 25, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Canada was facing a capability gap in its CF-18 fighter fleet so severe that commitments to both NATO and NORAD were becoming endangered. Almost overnight, the procurement of new fighters was propelled to the top of the government’s acquisition priorities. The issue is apparently so acute that the government is exploring a so-called “interim” acquisition of Super Hornet fighters – out of the blue, without any further details to Canadians.
Everyone – in Parliament, in the public and in the media – has known for quite some time that Canada’s F-18 fighters were approaching the end of their service lives having flown for 20 years more than what was intended when they were acquired. But years of flight do not tell the full story.
Capability gaps could exist in three areas: The sensors and mission systems of the aircraft and associated payloads; the service life of the airframe and its ability to undertake high-stress manoeuvres; and the actual number of planes available to Canada for its missions. The government has yet to explain which of these invoked the new sense of urgency.
The sensors and mission systems have received continual upgrades. For example, in Kosovo, our CF-18s could drop unguided bombs only, but the risks of collateral damage resulted in upgrades to sensors and targeting systems to permit the use of precision-guided weapons. Before the mission against Islamic State, CF-18 airframes were reportedly upgraded to extend their service life and ensure that they were safe to fly. On any given day, a minimum number of CF-18s have to be available for daily NORAD missions, and a number held in lower readiness for NATO commitments.
A deficiency in any of the above would provoke a rush for an interim acquisition, but the government has yet to explain the reasons.
Mere weeks ago, the commander of the RCAF told a Parliamentary committee Canada has enough fighters to meet its national and international obligations until at least 2025. This is ample time to conduct an open competition and buy new aircraft well before the CF-18s’ expiry date of 2025. Has someone been manipulating facts to Canadians?
Yet the government has now stated that the capability gap is so severe it needs a quick fix.
The thing is, there are no quick fixes unless an ally is willing to sell existing aircraft to Canada. If not, an interim purchase would still have to be built after it is contracted, and that would entail a wait of at least two to three years for delivery. And so if this is not an immediate problem but a projected one, an interim new aircraft purchase solves little, and if anything, constrains Canada’s future options.
Some point to Australia’s interim acquisition of Super Hornets as a model for Canada, but the context and circumstances were entirely different. Australia needed to replace an out-of-production fighter for which parts were in short supply until their F-35s were delivered. That is not Canada’s situation.
But what is most disconcerting is that this possible acquisition is being contemplated in isolation from the current defence review. Ideally, the defence review will consider what Canada wishes to do in the world, and equally, equipment will be acquired from an analysis of the future security issues and characteristics that will dominate that future landscape. Does the proliferation of portable and larger anti-aircraft equipment mean aircraft survivability will be at a premium? Are potential adversaries or their proxies being equipped with aircraft that are better electronically camouflaged, or with greater manoeuvrability or with enhanced networking abilities? Two years ago, an independent panel commissioned by Public Works produced a detailed analysis of competing aircraft – why have Canadians not seen that report?
Nevertheless, it is within a defence review that affordability, the future operating landscape and our future needs should be defined. Apparently, that is not happening.
Given that our new fighters can be expected to last at least 30 years, after a vigorous defence review, a competition should be held to find an aircraft that meets all of Canada’s requirements. Without a competition in which the best aircraft might emerge, a future government could be saddled with a capability gap in the making.
----
Published by Globe and Mail
June 15, 2016
On May 25, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Canada was facing a capability gap in its CF-18 fighter fleet so severe that commitments to both NATO and NORAD were becoming endangered. Almost overnight, the procurement of new fighters was propelled to the top of the government’s acquisition priorities. The issue is apparently so acute that the government is exploring a so-called “interim” acquisition of Super Hornet fighters – out of the blue, without any further details to Canadians.
Everyone – in Parliament, in the public and in the media – has known for quite some time that Canada’s F-18 fighters were approaching the end of their service lives having flown for 20 years more than what was intended when they were acquired. But years of flight do not tell the full story.
Capability gaps could exist in three areas: The sensors and mission systems of the aircraft and associated payloads; the service life of the airframe and its ability to undertake high-stress manoeuvres; and the actual number of planes available to Canada for its missions. The government has yet to explain which of these invoked the new sense of urgency.
The sensors and mission systems have received continual upgrades. For example, in Kosovo, our CF-18s could drop unguided bombs only, but the risks of collateral damage resulted in upgrades to sensors and targeting systems to permit the use of precision-guided weapons. Before the mission against Islamic State, CF-18 airframes were reportedly upgraded to extend their service life and ensure that they were safe to fly. On any given day, a minimum number of CF-18s have to be available for daily NORAD missions, and a number held in lower readiness for NATO commitments.
A deficiency in any of the above would provoke a rush for an interim acquisition, but the government has yet to explain the reasons.
Mere weeks ago, the commander of the RCAF told a Parliamentary committee Canada has enough fighters to meet its national and international obligations until at least 2025. This is ample time to conduct an open competition and buy new aircraft well before the CF-18s’ expiry date of 2025. Has someone been manipulating facts to Canadians?
Yet the government has now stated that the capability gap is so severe it needs a quick fix.
The thing is, there are no quick fixes unless an ally is willing to sell existing aircraft to Canada. If not, an interim purchase would still have to be built after it is contracted, and that would entail a wait of at least two to three years for delivery. And so if this is not an immediate problem but a projected one, an interim new aircraft purchase solves little, and if anything, constrains Canada’s future options.
Some point to Australia’s interim acquisition of Super Hornets as a model for Canada, but the context and circumstances were entirely different. Australia needed to replace an out-of-production fighter for which parts were in short supply until their F-35s were delivered. That is not Canada’s situation.
But what is most disconcerting is that this possible acquisition is being contemplated in isolation from the current defence review. Ideally, the defence review will consider what Canada wishes to do in the world, and equally, equipment will be acquired from an analysis of the future security issues and characteristics that will dominate that future landscape. Does the proliferation of portable and larger anti-aircraft equipment mean aircraft survivability will be at a premium? Are potential adversaries or their proxies being equipped with aircraft that are better electronically camouflaged, or with greater manoeuvrability or with enhanced networking abilities? Two years ago, an independent panel commissioned by Public Works produced a detailed analysis of competing aircraft – why have Canadians not seen that report?
Nevertheless, it is within a defence review that affordability, the future operating landscape and our future needs should be defined. Apparently, that is not happening.
Given that our new fighters can be expected to last at least 30 years, after a vigorous defence review, a competition should be held to find an aircraft that meets all of Canada’s requirements. Without a competition in which the best aircraft might emerge, a future government could be saddled with a capability gap in the making.
----
George Petrolekas served with the military in Bosnia, Afghanistan and NATO and is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)