Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the big question is, which fighters will be in production then?

Well from the list of potential candidates approached by Canada,

F-35 – Confirmed and there will be ~1300 F-35s flying by 2025.
Rafale- Confirmed (The French recently announced plans for additional aircraft out to 2025).
Super Hornet – Unlikely. With only Kuwait to go for export and likely limited USN purchases going forward its days are numbered.
Eurofighter – Probably. It will at least be in production until 2022 when the Canadians plan to sign a contract so if selected it would be able to continue production and fulfil a Canadian order.
Gripen E – Unlikely candidate but will be in production in that timeframe.

YIMBY wrote:

Depends a lot of other countries' decision. Other than unpredictable ME countries purchasing unpredictable amount of unpredictable planes, in Europe at least Finland will buy a rather equal amount of rather similar planes probably just before Canada (Poland etc less likely and smaller amounts). Finnish conditions are rather similar to Canada (cold weather, road strips to be used as airfield) but military environment is very different. There is a small chance that Finland will make Eurofighter to survive until Canadian order and smaller chance for Super Hornet (if that is politically eligible for Canada anyway, but which is then).

keesje wrote:

I think over the last 3 months the chances for the Rafale have not been reduced. The partnerships between US (Trump), France (Macron), Canada (Trudeau) and Germany (Merkel) changed of time. The US decided to focus on their own needs / interest and that's their good right.

bigjku wrote:

I wouldn’t be stunned if they just get out of the business.

Ozair wrote:

If we take that US$20 billion and divide by the 88 aircraft then Canada pays an extra US$220 million for each jet in dev costs… They could of course do it on the cheap and buy an existing radar, engine, EW suite etc but that just translates to Canada system integrating, and taking all the associated risk that brings, while providing little benefit to Canadian Industry.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I wouldn’t be stunned if they just get out of the business.

That would result in quite a lot of savings; so let's cut defense spending! (As some of our European NATO allies are already doing).

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Boeing Co, locked in a trade dispute with the Canadian government, has applied to stay in the race to supply Canada with 88 new fighter jets, three well-placed sources said on Thursday.

Companies had until Feb. 9 to express an interest in taking part in a competition for planes worth between C$15 billion ($12.1 billion) and C$19 billion. Ottawa will release its specifications next year, at which point firms can bid.

Boeing did let Canada know it was interested, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The decision does not mean the firm will necessarily put forward its F-18 Super Hornet.

Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Companies interested in the Liberal government’s planned purchase of new fighter jets have been told not to talk to journalists despite claims by federal officials the process will be open and transparent.

Those company representatives taking part in the Jan. 22 industry day in Ottawa, which outlined initial details about the proposed $19 billion acquisition, were required to sign a form agreeing not to share information with the media, according to documents obtained by Postmedia.

“Your registration to this event acknowledges your agreement to not share information or materials obtained at the event with the media, and certifies that you are not a member of the media,” the form noted.

The Liberal government’s quest to buy new fighter jets has been controversial, with mixed signals and bungled deals.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said earlier his government would not buy the F-35 stealth fighter, claiming it didn’t work. His government later reversed course, adding that F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin was welcome to offer their plane to Canada in any competition.

In 2016, the Liberals launched a plan to buy new Super Hornet jets from Boeing as an interim measure, only to scuttle that deal a year later because of a trade war involving the U.S. firm.

Instead, the government says it will now buy used F-18 jets from Australia.

The gag order on the industry day event was forwarded to Postmedia by company representatives concerned about the excessive government secrecy on a program that will cost taxpayers $19 billion.

Public Services and Procurement Canada did not comment on the issue.

But it is not the first attempt by the Liberals to crack down on what information might make its way to the public or news media about the multi-billion program.

In November 2016 it was revealed the Liberal government brought in an unprecedented gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program.

The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions undertaken by the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit as well as clandestine operations by the country’s spies, military sources say.

The permanent non-disclosure agreements were uncovered by Conservative defence critic James Bezan after he requested information through the House of Commons “inquiry of ministry” process.

The information provided to Bezan noted that 121 individuals at the Department of National Defence were required to sign the non-disclosure agreement, 39 at Public Services and Procurement Canada; and 18 at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The rest of the 235 were employed by the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Department of Justice and Privy Council Office.

Five other individuals working on the fighter jet replacement project who are under contract to DND were also required to sign the non-disclosure agreement or NDA.

“The NDA is a life-time agreement,” the response to Bezan noted. Persons signing the NDA are considered “persons permanently bound to secrecy” on the future fighter jet capability project, it added.

Defence industry executives and retired public servants say they have never seen such secrecy surrounding an equipment program.

The DND claimed that such agreements have been used with procurement staff before on occasion.

But Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister for materiel at the DND, has said that he had never heard of such agreements. Over the years Williams oversaw hundreds of equipment projects at both DND and Public Works, worth billions of dollars.

The fighter jet industry day involved some 200 participants from 108 companies. Some of those who attended questioned why government officials at the meeting could only provide basic details about the fighter jet program. Industry representatives noted that the purchase, which would see a contract awarded in 2021 or 2022, seems drawn out, considering federal procurement officials have been involved in trying to buy a new jet since 2010.

The Canadian government has announced that five bidders — Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab — are eligible to compete for a long sought-after contract to replace the country’s 88 CF-18 fighters.

The disclosure of the Future Fighter Capabilities Project (FFCP)’s official Supplier’s List ends a mystery about whether Boeing would decline to participate after angering Canadian government officials.

The Supplier’s List shows that Royal Canadian Air Force’s options remain plentiful, with the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet and F-35 Lightning II available for purchase. The release of the government’s Supplier’s List does not mean the companies are committed to submitting bids for the contract award scheduled 2021 or 2022.

“We will continue to evaluate our participation in the FFCP as the Government of Canada outlines the procurement approach, requirements and evaluation criteria,” Boeing says.

The federal government has embarked on a couple of initiatives to support the project to buy a new fleet of fighter jets for the RCAF. The aircraft will replace the air force’s CF-18s.

Through a Request for Proposal issued Tuesday, the Canadian government will be hiring an independent third-party reviewer to help validate various procurement documents and support processes relating to the Future Fighter Capability Project. The reviewer’s role will be to provide defence procurement and financial expert analysis to ensure that the procurement approach “is designed to deliver the desired outcomes,” according to Public Services and Procurement Canada.

The list of eligible suppliers for the new fighter jet includes the following teams (in alphabetical order):

France—Dassault Aviation (Thales DMS France SAS and Safran Aircraft Engines)
Sweden—SAAB AB (publ)—Aeronautics
United Kingdom and Northern Ireland—Airbus Defense and Space GmbH
United States—Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company)
United States—The Boeing Company
Only these suppliers will be invited to participate in subsequent formal engagement activities and to submit proposals, according to the government.

In parallel with discussions with these suppliers, the Canadian government will continue to talk to other firms to gather and share general information related to the procurement. This aims to make sure that Canadian aerospace and defence firms can play a role in the procurement.


Innovation, Science and Economic Development, in partnership with National Defence and Public Services and Procurement will conduct regional forums across Canada, according to the federal government. These forums, to be held in the cities listed below, will be an opportunity for the Canadian aerospace and defence sectors to learn more about the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy including the Value Proposition and to engage with potential prime contractors:

Monday, April 23—Ottawa, Ontario
Tuesday, April 24—Toronto, Ontario
Wednesday, April 25—Winnipeg, Manitoba
Friday, April 27—Vancouver, British Columbia
Monday, April 30—Halifax, Nova Scotia
Tuesday, May 1—Montreal, Quebec

Canada’s auditor general has started to dig into one of the Trudeau government’s most contentious claims, upon which rests the fate of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars: that the country is facing an urgent shortage of fighter jets.

The claim was first made in November, 2016, when the Liberals announced that Canada didn’t have enough fighter jets to defend North America and simultaneously meet the country’s NATO commitments, and that a stopgap was urgently needed until the entire CF-18 fleet could be replaced.

The government originally planned to buy 18 interim Super Hornets from Boeing for $6.4-billion before the deal was scuttled late last year in favour of buying 25 used jets from Australia for $500-million.

But critics, including opposition parties and former air force commanders, accuse the government of fabricating an urgent “capability gap” – as the shortfall is known – by changing the military’s requirements to avoid having to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.

ThePointblank wrote:

The Auditor General is investigating claims that there was a 'capability gap' and a stopgap was needed to fill the gap immediately:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... aims-of-a/

Canada’s auditor general has started to dig into one of the Trudeau government’s most contentious claims, upon which rests the fate of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars: that the country is facing an urgent shortage of fighter jets.

The claim was first made in November, 2016, when the Liberals announced that Canada didn’t have enough fighter jets to defend North America and simultaneously meet the country’s NATO commitments, and that a stopgap was urgently needed until the entire CF-18 fleet could be replaced.

The government originally planned to buy 18 interim Super Hornets from Boeing for $6.4-billion before the deal was scuttled late last year in favour of buying 25 used jets from Australia for $500-million.

But critics, including opposition parties and former air force commanders, accuse the government of fabricating an urgent “capability gap” – as the shortfall is known – by changing the military’s requirements to avoid having to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.

The Auditor General is also investigating the costs and impact for extending the life of the CF-18 fleet. This report should be out in the fall.

bigjku wrote:

The fighter plans are a joke. The frigate program has been delayed and delayed and I won’t be shocked if it gets rebid. The submarine program has been awful. The army has been reduced to almost nothing in terms of combat power really.

Kiwirob wrote:

bigjku wrote:

The fighter plans are a joke. The frigate program has been delayed and delayed and I won’t be shocked if it gets rebid. The submarine program has been awful. The army has been reduced to almost nothing in terms of combat power really.

Buy Type 26 like the Aussies did and reap the rewards in being part of a large program.

Canada expects to accept formal bids for a new fighter jet in May, with the first aircraft delivered by 2025, according to Canadian government procurement officials.

A draft bid package for 88 fighters was issued to companies for their feedback by the end of this year, said Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence. From there, the final bidding instructions for the CA$16 billion (U.S. $12 billion) procurement will be issued and bids required by May 2019, he added.

The aircraft will replace Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. The aircraft expected to be considered include Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Saab’s Gripen and the Boeing Super Hornet.

The Canadian government will require a robust package of guaranteed industrial benefits or offsets from the winning bidder, government officials said. But that could be a problem for the F-35, as Canada is still a partner in that program, which does not guarantee participating-nations contracts. Work on the F-35 program is based on best value and price.

Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion, as more than 110 Canadian firms have landed contracts related to the aircraft program.

Jeff Waring, director general for industrial benefits policy at the federal Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, said the country sees the fighter jet program as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Canadian economy.”

But he noted the industrial benefits policy is flexible. “It is a market-driven approach,” he said. “It encourages suppliers to make investments that make sense to them.”

The issue of industrial benefits has already been discussed with companies interested in bidding on the project, and those talks will continue as feedback is received on the draft bid package, government officials said.

Canada is facing a complex challenge as it gets ready to launch a full competition for new fighter jets stemming from its long-standing involvement in the international coalition that is building the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 stealth aircraft.

The federal government confirmed on Monday that it will maintain its membership in the F-35 consortium. At the same time, Ottawa is getting ready to send out requests for proposals for new fighter jets to five potential bidders, including Lockheed Martin.

Federal officials insist that all bidders will have to adhere to Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits policy (ITB), which requires the winning supplier to “make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract." The cost of replacing the Royal Canadian Air Force’s current fleet of CF-18s is estimated at $26-billion.

Under the rules of the F-35 consortium, however, partner countries such as Canada must forego such regional offset programs, which have long been a central element of Canadian military acquisitions. Earlier this year, Canada paid $54-million to remain in the F-35 buyers’ pool.

“We’re keeping our involvement alive to get access to that product at the best possible terms,” Pat Finn, an assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence, said in an interview on Monday. “If the F-35 were to win, the lowest cost access to the aircraft is through the partnership. Having been involved from the outset, we don’t want to lose the privilege of that."

Since 1997, Canada has paid nearly half a billion dollars to stay in the F-35 consortium.
Jeff Waring, a director-general at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, said it will be up to Lockheed Martin to determine how it can meet Canada’s requirement for regional offsets if it wants to bid on the contract.

“The ITB policy is a market-driven approach; it doesn’t prescribe to bidders how they need to invest in Canada,” he said.
The federal government has nearly finalized its request for proposal for the new fighter jets. It is now waiting for industry feedback over the next six weeks before launching the formal competition next year.

Three European companies (Dassault Aviation, Saab Automobile and Airbus) and two American companies (Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co.) have said they intend to bid on the contract.

In the draft request for proposal, the government has laid out new details on its “economic impact test” that will penalize companies that are deemed to have a negative effect on the Canadian economy. When it was announced last year, the test was dubbed the “Boeing clause” because of U.S.-based Boeing’s trade dispute with Canada’s Bombardier Inc., which Bombardier subsequently won.

The new measure is expected to look at whether companies have launched a trade action in the two previous years against a Canadian company. Given Boeing launched its case against Bombardier in 2017, it will likely be in the clear by the time it would have to submit a final bid in 2020.

The previous Conservative government had committed to buying F-35 fighter jets, which were deemed at the time to be the only aircraft able to meet Canada’s requirements, in large part because of their stealth capabilities.

The current Liberal government has modified the requirements to make sure there can be competition between the various manufacturers.

“If your aircraft cannot meet [a requirement] today, we are not saying automatically that you’re out; but you have to tell us what is your solution to meet it, at what price and what schedule,” said Mr. Finn.

In the last federal election, the Liberals said in their platform that they would not buy the F-35, promising instead to select “one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.”

However, the Liberals also promised to launch an “open and transparent” competition, which is now scheduled to be launched in May.

keesje wrote:

I think over the last 3 months the chances for the Rafale have not been reduced.

The long effort to replace Canada’s aging fighter jets took another surprise twist on Tuesday, as multiple sources revealed that French fighter-jet maker Dassault is pulling out of the multibillion-dollar competition.

The decision comes just over a week after the federal government published the military’s requirements for a replacement for Canada’s CF-18s as well as a draft process by which a winning supplier will be chosen.

Dassault had repeatedly pitched its Rafale aircraft to Canada over the years as successive governments in Ottawa have wrestled with selecting a new fighter jet. Dassault’s pitch included significant promises, including that it would assemble the planes in Canada.

But sources tell The Canadian Press that Dassault’s decision to withdraw was related to the fact France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which counts the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada as members. The five members have very specific requirements for how their equipment works together.

The French government, which had been closely working with Dassault as the most recent iteration of Canada’s fighter-replacement program has inched along over the past year, was preparing to notify Ottawa of the company’s withdrawal.

The move leaves four companies — U.S. aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, European competitor Airbus and Swedish firm Saab — competing for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada’s 76 CF-18s with 88 new fighters.

A contract isn’t expected to be awarded until 2021 or 2022, with delivery of the first new aircraft slated for 2025. In the meantime, the government is planning to upgrade its CF-18s and buy 25 used fighters from Australia as a stopgap.

Dassault faced several significant challenges in meeting Canada’s requirements for a new fighter, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and while they weren’t insurmountable, they would have cost time and money.

Those challenges included meeting those Five-Eyes intelligence-sharing requirements, which Perry said put Dassault at a distinct disadvantage in the competition when compared to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and, to a certain degree, Airbus.

“For any of the non-American companies, solving the Five-Eyes interoperability issues is going to be challenging,” he said, noting that the U.S. in particular is very sensitive about data-sharing.

“And it costs companies a lot of money to mount and pursue bids. So if they think at this point in time that it’s not a realistic prospect, then pulling out is pretty understandable.”

That could explain why Dassault never established a strong presence in Canada during the many years when it was trying to sell the Rafale as a replacement for the CF-18, he added.

The CF-18s are about 35 years old. Canada’s attempts to buy a new fighter jet have dragged on for nearly a decade after 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.

But the Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after the auditor general raised questions about the program and National Defence revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes.

After campaigning on a promise not to buy the F-35s, the Trudeau Liberals announced in November 2016 they would take their time with a competition to replace the CF-18s, and buy 18 “interim” Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because Canada needed more fighter jets badly.

But then Boeing’s trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier saw the Liberals scrap their plan to buy Super Hornets and instead begin talks to buy 18 used fighter jets from Australia. A contract for those used planes is expected in the coming weeks.

The formal competition to replace the CF-18s is scheduled to begin next spring.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think over the last 3 months the chances for the Rafale have not been reduced.

The following may be a surprise to supporters of the Rafale in Canada... Nothing confirmed yet but it seems likely that Dassault will pull out and you would subsequently expect Saab to probably pull out as well for similar information sharing reasons. Saab may have BAE backing for their information sharing but the cost to bid will be high. Add in BAE having a stake in both the Eurofighter and the F-35 and it seems unlikely that the Gripen will be competitive.

French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources

The long effort to replace Canada’s aging fighter jets took another surprise twist on Tuesday, as multiple sources revealed that French fighter-jet maker Dassault is pulling out of the multibillion-dollar competition.

The decision comes just over a week after the federal government published the military’s requirements for a replacement for Canada’s CF-18s as well as a draft process by which a winning supplier will be chosen.

Dassault had repeatedly pitched its Rafale aircraft to Canada over the years as successive governments in Ottawa have wrestled with selecting a new fighter jet. Dassault’s pitch included significant promises, including that it would assemble the planes in Canada.

But sources tell The Canadian Press that Dassault’s decision to withdraw was related to the fact France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which counts the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada as members. The five members have very specific requirements for how their equipment works together.

The French government, which had been closely working with Dassault as the most recent iteration of Canada’s fighter-replacement program has inched along over the past year, was preparing to notify Ottawa of the company’s withdrawal.

The move leaves four companies — U.S. aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, European competitor Airbus and Swedish firm Saab — competing for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada’s 76 CF-18s with 88 new fighters.

A contract isn’t expected to be awarded until 2021 or 2022, with delivery of the first new aircraft slated for 2025. In the meantime, the government is planning to upgrade its CF-18s and buy 25 used fighters from Australia as a stopgap.

Dassault faced several significant challenges in meeting Canada’s requirements for a new fighter, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and while they weren’t insurmountable, they would have cost time and money.

Those challenges included meeting those Five-Eyes intelligence-sharing requirements, which Perry said put Dassault at a distinct disadvantage in the competition when compared to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and, to a certain degree, Airbus.

“For any of the non-American companies, solving the Five-Eyes interoperability issues is going to be challenging,” he said, noting that the U.S. in particular is very sensitive about data-sharing.

“And it costs companies a lot of money to mount and pursue bids. So if they think at this point in time that it’s not a realistic prospect, then pulling out is pretty understandable.”

That could explain why Dassault never established a strong presence in Canada during the many years when it was trying to sell the Rafale as a replacement for the CF-18, he added.

The CF-18s are about 35 years old. Canada’s attempts to buy a new fighter jet have dragged on for nearly a decade after 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.

But the Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after the auditor general raised questions about the program and National Defence revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes.

After campaigning on a promise not to buy the F-35s, the Trudeau Liberals announced in November 2016 they would take their time with a competition to replace the CF-18s, and buy 18 “interim” Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because Canada needed more fighter jets badly.

But then Boeing’s trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier saw the Liberals scrap their plan to buy Super Hornets and instead begin talks to buy 18 used fighter jets from Australia. A contract for those used planes is expected in the coming weeks.

The formal competition to replace the CF-18s is scheduled to begin next spring.

https://vancouversun.com/pmn/news-pmn/c ... 6317a46fd2

keesje wrote:

The French are escalating the topic, lets see what happens. How are the government relations these days?

1 Interoperability : NORAD, NATO, safeguard shared 5/2 Eyes intelligence
2 Upgradeability : Ability to maintain Operational Advantage against current and future threats
3 Performance: Range, endurance and speeds required in NORAD and NATO mission configurations
4 Awareness : Ability to gather intelligence, detect, track, identify, assess in permissive and contested environments
5 Survivability : Ability to operate in permissive and contested environment
6 Lethality : Ability to effectively carry out its assigned tasks in permissive and contested environment
7 Sustainability: Ability to sustain Force Generation and Force Employment systems throughout service life

In the US a software reprogramming laboratory is also under construction, which will support JSF aircraft from Australia, Canada (should Canada eventually purchase the F-35) and the UK. Known as the ACURL (Australia, Canada, UK Reprogramming Laboratory), the facility is adjacent to a similar USRL (for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps) and NIRL (for Norway and Italy). A further reprogramming laboratory will support the remaining partner nations and FMS customers at NAS Point Mugu in California.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

The French are escalating the topic, lets see what happens. How are the government relations these days?

That is highly unlikely Keesje, Trudeau won’t be able to change the NORAD specific requirements of the tender, especially as the tender documents have already been released to the respective bidders. It would create an instant protest point and with an election less than 12 months away Trudeau doesn't need that kind of publicity.

ThePointblank wrote:

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

The French are escalating the topic, lets see what happens. How are the government relations these days?

That is highly unlikely Keesje, Trudeau won’t be able to change the NORAD specific requirements of the tender, especially as the tender documents have already been released to the respective bidders. It would create an instant protest point and with an election less than 12 months away Trudeau doesn't need that kind of publicity.

On top of that, the Rafale would have been an extreme long shot anyways; buying the Rafale means scrapping all existing munitions, pods and support hardware in favour of their (more expensive) French equivalents.

And trying to integrate existing weapons and pods onto the Rafale means extensive development, certification, and testing requirements that would be fraught with risk and costs.

keesje wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Ozair wrote:

That is highly unlikely Keesje, Trudeau won’t be able to change the NORAD specific requirements of the tender, especially as the tender documents have already been released to the respective bidders. It would create an instant protest point and with an election less than 12 months away Trudeau doesn't need that kind of publicity.

On top of that, the Rafale would have been an extreme long shot anyways; buying the Rafale means scrapping all existing munitions, pods and support hardware in favour of their (more expensive) French equivalents.

And trying to integrate existing weapons and pods onto the Rafale means extensive development, certification, and testing requirements that would be fraught with risk and costs.

Things are moving. Agreements, cooperation, self evident follow ups, all seems to be up for discussion / change lately. Specially in this field.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4490794/trump-slams-canada-on-nafta

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

On top of that, the Rafale would have been an extreme long shot anyways; buying the Rafale means scrapping all existing munitions, pods and support hardware in favour of their (more expensive) French equivalents.

And trying to integrate existing weapons and pods onto the Rafale means extensive development, certification, and testing requirements that would be fraught with risk and costs.

Things are moving. Agreements, cooperation, self evident follow ups, all seems to be up for discussion / change lately. Specially in this field.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4490794/trump-slams-canada-on-nafta

Keesje your link is almost two months old and doesn't have any relevance to the current situation or the fighter procurement.

The Canadian government’s December announcement did not come as a surprise, partly because of the news leaks earlier in the week, but also because of a rupture in relations between Canada and Boeing earlier in 2017 after the U.S. aerospace giant launched an unfair trade claim against Bombardier Aerospace of Montreal.

keesje wrote:

- The previous SuperHorner deal killed because of it.

The Canadian government’s December announcement did not come as a surprise, partly because of the news leaks earlier in the week, but also because of a rupture in relations between Canada and Boeing earlier in 2017 after the U.S. aerospace giant launched an unfair trade claim against Bombardier Aerospace of Montreal.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/04/canada-gave-u-s-just-hours-notice-not-buy-super-hornets/

keesje wrote:

- The relation is what it is.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/01/trade-wars-canada-not-ready-forgive-trumps-insulting/1648045002/

keesje wrote:

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

Things are moving. Agreements, cooperation, self evident follow ups, all seems to be up for discussion / change lately. Specially in this field.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4490794/trump-slams-canada-on-nafta

Keesje your link is almost two months old and doesn't have any relevance to the current situation or the fighter procurement.

- The previous SuperHorner deal killed because of it.

The Canadian government’s December announcement did not come as a surprise, partly because of the news leaks earlier in the week, but also because of a rupture in relations between Canada and Boeing earlier in 2017 after the U.S. aerospace giant launched an unfair trade claim against Bombardier Aerospace of Montreal.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/04/canada-gave-u-s-just-hours-notice-not-buy-super-hornets/

- The relation is what it is.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/01/trade-wars-canada-not-ready-forgive-trumps-insulting/1648045002/

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

It's more like putting Boeing "last" (versus Canada first) as we'll probably end up ordering the US made F35. But hey, since that last NAFTA renegociation - maybe we should maybe look more toward Europe. (Apparently our trade deficit with the US is irrelevant, so it's ok to be treated worst than North Korea). Not even sure where NATO is now going...

About that Boeing complaint (which was debated here to death), a vague consensus what agreed around the word "hypocrit" in describing Boeing (which was not producing anything close to the CS100, nor did it offer then any US made aircrafts to Delta).

The only aim (that Boeing openly stated) was to destroy the CSeries and not repeat the same mistake in letting a new entrant (BBD) in the market. Pretty predatory to me if you ask me. I sincerly hope nobody forgets that behevior in Canada.

keesje wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

It's more like putting Boeing "last" (versus Canada first) as we'll probably end up ordering the US made F35. But hey, since that last NAFTA renegociation - maybe we should maybe look more toward Europe. (Apparently our trade deficit with the US is irrelevant, so it's ok to be treated worst than North Korea). Not even sure where NATO is now going...

About that Boeing complaint (which was debated here to death), a vague consensus what agreed around the word "hypocrit" in describing Boeing (which was not producing anything close to the CS100, nor did it offer then any US made aircrafts to Delta).

The only aim (that Boeing openly stated) was to destroy the CSeries and not repeat the same mistake in letting a new entrant (BBD) in the market. Pretty predatory to me if you ask me. I sincerly hope nobody forgets that behevior in Canada.

If this was a legal action to protect national interest and support local jobs, it calculated in fall-out like this I suppose.

A few weeks ago Dassault withdrew from competition, because of compliance with the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network. It could be a challenge to find out how un-touchable that cooperation really is, specially if the dominant partner decides to use it to build new Cold War on China. A good old cold war / FUT with enormous defense budgets How essential is this Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network really for buying a new fighter, if old F18 will do too. It seems CAnada is buyig time. Rewarding Trump with a multi billion order for what he is doing seems unlikely.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/french-firm-dassault-pulls-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-sources

If a customized Rafales can be build locally by Canadian industry as part of a bigger cooperation with Dassault and Airbus on a 6th Gen fighter, things could get interesting. It totally political, so lets not over state specifications / technicalities. Many earlier decisions have been winded back in this process.

Ozair wrote:

Given the Canadians will be making the final decision in 2022 I doubt Trump will be a factor. Despite your suggestion Canada is still close to the US politically and militarily and the demands of NORAD “trump” those of NATO, especially under Trudeau. While Rafale is certainly not excluded from the competition there are some obvious issues with selecting it, including integrating into the NORAD structure, weapons compatibility and the lack of industrial support or industry return. Plus it will not be either the most capable platform or the cheapest in 2022 when the decision is made.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau ordered 138 CF-18 fighter jets in 1980. As of September 2018, 76 modernized CF-18s remain in service. Over the past two decades, four different Prime Ministers have been involved in selecting a replacement for the CF-18. With a purchase price of over $16 billion and a potential total lifetime cost of over $40 billion, the CF-18 replacement will be the second most expensive military procurement in Canadian history. Not only will the CF-18 replacement program have to fight for funding against the general austerity and easy riding nature of Canadians, but it will also be running concurrently with the largest military procurement in Canadian history: The National Shipbuilding Strategy.

This paper reviews the history of Canadian military procurement, with emphasis on the successful New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) program of the 1970s that selected the CF-18, and how those lessons should be applied to the CF-18 replacement. This paper argues that, absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15% of GDP in defence spending, the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure. By reviewing how the CF-18 serves at home on the NORAD mission, in Europe on NATO air policing missions, and as part of coalition combat missions; the minimum requirements for the CF-18 replacement are identified.

This paper recommends employing the NFA methodology to design a defence policy for easy riders. Such a defence policy will meet military objectives with best value, state-of the-art technology that also offers full industrial offsets for Canadian industry. The best value solution to the CF-18 replacement is the least expensive jet in the competition: the Saab Gripen.

Eurofighter, a joint venture among Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo, was assumed to be one of the bidders in the competition to replace the RCAF’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced jets, but it hadn’t yet publicly acknowledged its desire to play for the contract. Simon Jacques, head of Airbus defense and space in Canada, said at a company event in Montreal that his firm intends to submit a proposal for the Typhoon.

“We are very engaged,” he says. “We want to propose the Typhoon, the most advanced new generation multi, swing-role fighter on the market today."

In October, RCAF issued a draft request for proposal to replace its aging CF-18A/B fleet. Ottawa listed five suppliers eligible to compete: Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale; Saab, maker of the JAS 39 Gripen; Airbus Defense – on behalf of the Eurofighter joint venture, maker of the Typhoon; Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16 and F-35; and Boeing, maker of the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle. Only those five will be allowed to submit proposals.

The RCAF plans to receive initial proposals from bidders between summer and winter 2019. A contract is anticipated to be awarded during the winter months of 2021-2022.

Canada wants initial aircraft to be delivered in 2025, with initial operational capability achieved by 2026. The government wants all aircraft delivered by 2031 or 2032, at which time the CF-18 fleet will be retired.

Jacques says the Eurofighter bid will include some sort of participation from Canadian manufacturers, though the type of involvement in the aircraft’s supply chain or extent was not specified.

"With our Canadian partners, it is going to be a Canadian solution and a good value for Canada," he says. "The RFP is coming out in mid of this year, right before the election."

RJMAZ wrote:

I think the decision comes down to the willingness of Canada to be part of the tip of the spear in a major conflict. Canada has never provided high end fighters in any conflict. The F-35 is the obvious selection if they now want to do so.

However there is nothing wrong with Canada accepting their traditional policing role and providing the role of escorting tankers/awacs etc, in lower risk areas. These jobs still need to be filled in a major conflict and it frees up higher end assets to be used in higher risk areas.

RJMAZ wrote:

I think the Gripen has a very good chance. It has the lowest operating costs by a very significant margin. The Hornets have only ever done basic missions and the Gripen will be able to do similar missions for the next couple decades. Single engine over the arctic is only a minor issue which the F-35 also shares.

krisyyz wrote:

I still don’t see how a single engine fighter would work for us. If northern sovereignty is a priority, and given the size of our airspace, we need something that has a fighting chance of making an airfield on a single working engine. The Super Hornet is still my pick, it’s relatively cheap, available quicker, proven and has some level of commonality with the Hornet.

Krisyyz

krisyyz wrote:

If we get a new government in October, or a minority, I can totally see this project be altered or restarted, once again.

seahawk wrote:

Imho the only sensible options are Eurofighter and F-35. And EF only if you want 2 engines.

426Shadow wrote:

If they don't pick the F-35 (which I don't necessarily think they should) then they need to be kicked out of the F-35 Industrial Share team (or whatever its called). If they want part of the pot, then they need to play some chips.

Canada is being forced to shoulder a bigger share of the costs of developing F-35 fighter jets even though it has not decided whether it will buy any.

Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter’s multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.

Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it’s expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year.

But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government’s plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88.

Even though Canada has not committed that those 88 jets will be F-35s, the Department of National Defence says that change means it will have to pay more to remain a partner — including about $72 million this year.

“Canada’s costs under the F-35 (partnership agreement) are based on an intended fleet size,” Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email.

“Canada changed its fleet size within the F-35 (agreement) from 65 to 88 aircraft to align with government decisions on the size of the intended permanent fighter fleet to be acquired through competition and the payment increased accordingly.”

As each partner contribution is determined annually, based on the overall cost of the F-35 development program for that specific year, Lemire said she could not provide details how much more Canada will have to pay.

The F-35’s development costs have been a constant source of criticism over the life of the stealth-fighter program, which Canada first joined under the Chretien government in 1997. The entire program is believed to have already cost more than US$1 trillion.

The Trudeau government says it plans to keep Canada in the F-35 development effort until a replacement for the CF-18s is chosen — partners in the development work can buy the planes at a lower price and compete for work associated with their production and long-term maintenance.

Canadian companies have so far won more than $1.2 billion in contracts related to the F-35, according to the government.

The F-35 is one of four planes slated to participate in the $19-billion competition that the government plans to launch this spring, the others being Boeing’s Super Hornet, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen.

The competition isn’t scheduled to select a winner until 2021 or 2022, meaning Canada will be on the hook for several more payments. The first new aircraft is expected in 2025 and the last in 2031, when the CF-18s will be phased out.

F-35 maker Lockheed Martin says more than 350 of the stealth fighters have been delivered to different countries, while Israel became the first country to use the plane in combat last year when two of the jets struck targets in neighbouring Syria.

Acting U.S. defence secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, nonetheless criticized the program on Monday, saying it “has room for a lot more performance.”

“I am biased toward performance,” he was quoted as saying when asked if he is biased toward Boeing. “I am biased toward giving the taxpayer their money’s worth. And the F-35, unequivocally, I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance.”

Ozair wrote:

I love how ironic this is for the Canadian Government. Flop back and forth and end up having to pay more to support a program the Liberal Government campaigned they would leave. Then run an open competition with signs pointing to the F-35 being selected in 2021, especially if the unit flyaway cost continues to drop as expected below US$80 million by then.

Canada forced to pay bigger share of F-35 fighter jet development costs — even though it may never buy any

Canada is being forced to shoulder a bigger share of the costs of developing F-35 fighter jets even though it has not decided whether it will buy any.

Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter’s multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.

Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it’s expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year.

But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government’s plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88.

Even though Canada has not committed that those 88 jets will be F-35s, the Department of National Defence says that change means it will have to pay more to remain a partner — including about $72 million this year.

“Canada’s costs under the F-35 (partnership agreement) are based on an intended fleet size,” Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email.

“Canada changed its fleet size within the F-35 (agreement) from 65 to 88 aircraft to align with government decisions on the size of the intended permanent fighter fleet to be acquired through competition and the payment increased accordingly.”

As each partner contribution is determined annually, based on the overall cost of the F-35 development program for that specific year, Lemire said she could not provide details how much more Canada will have to pay.

The F-35’s development costs have been a constant source of criticism over the life of the stealth-fighter program, which Canada first joined under the Chretien government in 1997. The entire program is believed to have already cost more than US$1 trillion.

The Trudeau government says it plans to keep Canada in the F-35 development effort until a replacement for the CF-18s is chosen — partners in the development work can buy the planes at a lower price and compete for work associated with their production and long-term maintenance.

Canadian companies have so far won more than $1.2 billion in contracts related to the F-35, according to the government.

The F-35 is one of four planes slated to participate in the $19-billion competition that the government plans to launch this spring, the others being Boeing’s Super Hornet, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen.

The competition isn’t scheduled to select a winner until 2021 or 2022, meaning Canada will be on the hook for several more payments. The first new aircraft is expected in 2025 and the last in 2031, when the CF-18s will be phased out.

F-35 maker Lockheed Martin says more than 350 of the stealth fighters have been delivered to different countries, while Israel became the first country to use the plane in combat last year when two of the jets struck targets in neighbouring Syria.

Acting U.S. defence secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, nonetheless criticized the program on Monday, saying it “has room for a lot more performance.”

“I am biased toward performance,” he was quoted as saying when asked if he is biased toward Boeing. “I am biased toward giving the taxpayer their money’s worth. And the F-35, unequivocally, I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance.”

https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/ ... c1da9f5c99

Nomadd wrote:

"The entire program is believed to have already cost more than US$1 trillion"
Uh.....yeah

The politically charged competition to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighter jets will rocket forward at the end of May as the federal government releases a long-anticipated, full-fledged tender call.

There are four companies in the running: Saab of Sweden, Airbus Defence and Space out of Britain, and the American firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Once the request for proposals is released, the manufacturers will have until the end of the year to submit bids, defence and industry sources told CBC News.

It was the former Conservative government that kicked off the effort to replace the three-decade-old CF-18s in 2010, an attempt that was shot down in a dispute over the way the F-35 fighter was selected.

The program became mired in politics when the Liberals promised during the 2015 election campaign not to buy the stealth jet. A final decision will now have to wait until after this fall's election.

...

U.S. officials have warned the Trudeau government that its plan to hold an open competition to replace its aging CF-18s is incompatible with Canada’s obligations as a member of the F-35 stealth-fighter program.

The warnings are in two letters sent to the government last year that were obtained by defence analyst Richard Shimooka and released in a report published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank.

The letters specifically take issue with the government’s plan to have each fighter-jet maker commit to re-investing in Canada if its aircraft wins the upcoming competition aimed at buying 88 new planes for $19 billion.

While that is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note that Canada agreed not to apply such a requirement when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006.

Companies in those countries are instead allowed to compete for work associated with the plane, and the U.S. officials say imposing requirements as a condition to bid will mean the F-35 won’t be entered in the race.

Canada has contributed roughly $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, which now is expected to compete against three other aircraft to replace the CF-18s.

American officials will need to certify the fighter jet Canada buys at the end of a multibillion-dollar procurement that’s started and stopped and started again for more than a decade, ensuring that it’s fit to plug into the U.S.’s highest-security intelligence systems.

But, says the Department of National Defence’s top procurement official, they will not get to decide which plane replaces Canadian military’s aging CF-18s.

“Ultimately when we select, when we are into the detailed design, at some point, yes, the U.S. will have a role to play in ultimate certification,” Patrick Finn, the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel, told The Canadian Press.

“But the Americans won’t be sitting with us with the evaluation and doing that type of work. It will be us.”

Some industry sources are nonetheless worried the U.S. could use the certification requirement to block Canada from choosing a non-American plane, particularly given the Trump administration’s approach to trade.

The federal government this week laid out the latest iteration of its plan for the $19-billion competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s with 88 new fighters, which is expected to officially launch in July.

While much of the presentation delivered to fighter-jet makers focused on a loosening of industrial-benefit rules (that is, how much the winning bidder will be expected to spend on work and production in Canada), the government also revealed that companies will be asked to show how they plan to meet certain security requirements.

Specifically, companies will have until September to explain how they plan to ensure their aircraft can comply with the standards required for handling top-secret intelligence from two security networks in which Canada takes part, called “Five Eyes” and “Two Eyes.”

The “Five Eyes” network comprises Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. “Two Eyes” is just Canada and the U.S. and is essential for co-operating in the defence of North America.

Meeting those requirements will pose different challenges for the four plane models that are expected to square off to replace the CF-18s, with the U.S.-made Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing Super Hornet already fully compliant.

The other two expected competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, will face a tougher time. The Typhoon, which is used by the British military, already meets Five-Eyes requirements, but neither it nor the Swedish-made Gripen meets the Two-Eyes standard.

ThePointblank wrote:

A bit of a monkey wrench in the works; American officials will need to sign off and certify the fighter jet Canada buys to ensure the fighter jet meets American intelligence sharing requirements: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... ion-dnd-2/