Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 13:49

Canada needs to end this fustercluck, then de-brief to identify what went so wrong, such that it never happens again.

Just select the F-35 and get on with putting maple leafs on its wings. They'll do the air policing thing, but it'll really shine in their NATO obligations when its time to pound the ground. And jeez, by the time they get it it'll probably be under 80 million - at least if they select the A.

I don't think there were ever any plans for the B, but can you imagine? That decision could add another 10 years to the timeline, at which point Tempest should be close and... more analysis paralysis LOL.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 22:10

Canada may be the next nation to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.

The F-35’s competitors are dwindling.

In August, Britain’s Ministry of Defense and European manufacturer Airbus withdrew the Eurofighter from Canada’s competition to pick a replacement for its 35-year-old CF-18 fighters. In 2018, France’s Dassault withdrew the Rafale from the contest.

That just leaves three contenders: Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and Swedish manufacturer Saab’s Gripen. The winner is slated to receive a CA$19 billion (U.S. $15 billion) contract for 88 jets in 2022.

David Pugliese, who covers defense for the Ottawa Citizen, has chronicled how the F-35’s competitors have dropped out one by one. In May, Canada’s Department of National Defense changed the procurement rules after the U.S. warned that the F-35 program barred the aircraft from being sold to nations who promised industrial benefits in return for selecting the Lightning II.

“Under the F-35 agreement, partner nations such as Canada are prohibited from demanding domestic companies receive specific work on the fighter jet,” Pugliese explained. “Instead, Canadian firms compete and if they are good enough, they receive contracts. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned more than $1.3 billion in contracts to build F-35 parts. But there are no guarantees.”

“Airbus was willing to outline and guarantee specific industrial benefits for Canada,” Pugliese added. “That was the way previous defense procurements had worked.”

Another hurdle was a new requirement that the winning fighter must show it would be integrated into the joint U.S.-Canadian air defense system. While probably not an issue for the Super Hornet, it would surely have been one for the European contenders. Canadian media pointed out that “Airbus would have been required to show how it planned to integrate the Eurofighter Typhoon into the U.S.-Canadian system without knowing the system’s full technical details.

But even Boeing may be having second thoughts. In July, Reuters reported that the American defense giant may drop out of the fighter competition. Boeing and the European manufacturers “have already complained about the way the contest is being run, and expressed concern some of the specifications clearly favor the U.S. firm, industry sources have said in recent weeks,” said Reuters.

This is just another twist in a drama that has lasted for years, amid infighting between Canadian political parties, economic tensions between Ottawa and the Trump administration, and even a Canadian plan to buy used Australian F/A-18s as a stopgap.

Perhaps this was inevitable. Canada has sometimes charted a different defense procurement path than its Big Brother to the south, such as selecting Germany’s Leopard tank instead of a U.S. vehicle. Nonetheless, the fact is that the F-35 will be the dominant warplane of the West for the next several decades. Not just of the United States, but of more than 15 nations, including key NATO allies such as Britain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well Japan, Australia and Israel. Given the enormous amount of prestige that the U.S. government has put behind the F-35, and the numerous sweeteners and pressures for a deal, it would be tough for F-35 competitors to compete and tough for Ottawa to resist the F-35 juggernaut


https://news.yahoo.com/one-nation-may-n ... RzZWMDc3I-

if Boeing drops out first, Saab is going to have to sprint to the exit too, or its going to be an even more obvious loss.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 03:35

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 09:44

mixelflick wrote:Canada needs to end this fustercluck, then de-brief to identify what went so wrong, such that it never happens again.


Extremely low quality political leadership combined with a media-driven public-'debate' that didn't know its a$$ from its elbow, and never will.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 15:13

element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Canada needs to end this fustercluck, then de-brief to identify what went so wrong, such that it never happens again.


Extremely low quality political leadership combined with a media-driven public-'debate' that didn't know its a$$ from its elbow, and never will.


Interesting question: Was the acquisition process always this screwed up? Did the Canadians go about selecting the F-18 in an efficient, objective and coherent manner? Likewise for the F-101/104??
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 16:17

mixelflick wrote:Interesting question: Was the acquisition process always this screwed up? Did the Canadians go about selecting the F-18 in an efficient, objective and coherent manner? Likewise for the F-101/104??


No, the F/A-18 (CF-18) procurement in Canada was also another cluster f**k.

I invite you to watch the following video below - it's from 1980 when Canada was about the decide which would be its future fighter aircraft - but when watching it I "invite" you to watch it with your eyes closed (resuming, only listening to it) and everytime you hear the words "F-18" or "Hornet", replace them in your mind with "F-35". I'm sure you'll get, lots and lots of "Déjà vus" ;)

A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 16:26

mixelflick wrote:
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Canada needs to end this fustercluck, then de-brief to identify what went so wrong, such that it never happens again.


Extremely low quality political leadership combined with a media-driven public-'debate' that didn't know its a$$ from its elbow, and never will.


Interesting question: Was the acquisition process always this screwed up? Did the Canadians go about selecting the F-18 in an efficient, objective and coherent manner? Likewise for the F-101/104??



read and learn

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/n ... 30-eng.asp
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Oct 2019, 16:05

That was a fascinating read (and video). Thank you both!

I simply can't see any aircraft OTHER than the F-35 winning in Canada. Can't see Boeing repairing the damage its already done. Gripen? It has none of what Canada needs...

*Doesn't have the range
*Doesn't have the weapons load
*More accurately, you can't have both at the same time
*Not survivable in contested airspace, ergo Canada won't be able to fulfill NATO obligations
*Under-powered (They may not care though. Remember, they're coming from the Hornet LOL)
*More expensive than the F-35 (they'll care about this one)

In 2014, Brazil bought Gripen for $120 million per aircraft, armaments and services. It's only gotten more expensive since then, while the price of the F-35 continues to fall. By the time Canada pulls the trigger, it'll likely be under $80 million per aircraft, and the cost per flight hour will have fallen too. Let's call it $80 million. That's still a whopping 40 million cheaper vs. Gripen, and 40 million buys a lot of additional armaments and services..

It's hard to imagine Canada screwing this up in the long run. Stranger things have happened, and might still happen (new F-15EX's, surplus USAF F-15C's anyone?)
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post09 Oct 2019, 17:59

Well kick the can down road a few more years no more fighter is gonna be a course on the menu.
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post09 Oct 2019, 19:35

mixelflick wrote:That was a fascinating read (and video). Thank you both!

I simply can't see any aircraft OTHER than the F-35 winning in Canada. Can't see Boeing repairing the damage its already done. Gripen? It has none of what Canada needs...

*Doesn't have the range
They are certainly advertising some good range figures.

*Doesn't have the weapons load
Agreed

*More accurately, you can't have both at the same time
Many Canadians only want the new jet to protect Canadian airspace, so a few missiles and a heavy fuel load is acceptable to them.

*Not survivable in contested airspace, ergo Canada won't be able to fulfill NATO obligations
I guess it depends on how good that EW is.

*Under-powered (They may not care though. Remember, they're coming from the Hornet LOL)
Completely agree. T/W is extremely low.

*More expensive than the F-35 (they'll care about this one)
Not sure about that. You're comparing the whole contract cost of the Gripen, vs the flyway cost of the F-35.

In 2014, Brazil bought Gripen for $120 million per aircraft, armaments and services. It's only gotten more expensive since then, while the price of the F-35 continues to fall. By the time Canada pulls the trigger, it'll likely be under $80 million per aircraft, and the cost per flight hour will have fallen too. Let's call it $80 million. That's still a whopping 40 million cheaper vs. Gripen, and 40 million buys a lot of additional armaments and services..
The $120 million figure for the Gripen I think more closely compares to the ~$200 million contracts for the F-35. Though, maybe I am missing something, which is entirely possible.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Oct 2019, 23:32

ricnunes wrote:
I invite you to watch the following video below - it's from 1980 when Canada was about the decide which would be its future fighter aircraft - but when watching it I "invite" you to watch it with your eyes closed (resuming, only listening to it) and everytime you hear the words "F-18" or "Hornet", replace them in your mind with "F-35". I'm sure you'll get, lots and lots of "Déjà vus" ;)


Yes, this is often what killed me about the Australian and Canadian critics of the F-35.....You think they would have known better by now???
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 06:40

Corsair1963 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
I invite you to watch the following video below - it's from 1980 when Canada was about the decide which would be its future fighter aircraft - but when watching it I "invite" you to watch it with your eyes closed (resuming, only listening to it) and everytime you hear the words "F-18" or "Hornet", replace them in your mind with "F-35". I'm sure you'll get, lots and lots of "Déjà vus" ;)


Yes, this is often what killed me about the Australian and Canadian critics of the F-35.....You think they would have known better by now???


Keep in mind those Australian 'critics' were a very small vocal minority, some with vested interests in other, er, 'options', and were mostly disdained for making poor arguments using highly selective 'facts' and 'logic'. The media of course ignored this and pandered to them the whole time.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 16:06

playloud wrote:*Doesn't have the range
They are certainly advertising some good range figures.


Those advertised "good range figures" are IMO directly contradicted by this:
*Under-powered (They may not care though. Remember, they're coming from the Hornet LOL)
Completely agree. T/W is extremely low.


Resuming, those supposedly "good range figures" seem have come when the aircraft (Gripen E) was supposed to weight a ton (1,000 kg) less when empty.


playloud wrote:*More accurately, you can't have both at the same time
Many Canadians only want the new jet to protect Canadian airspace, so a few missiles and a heavy fuel load is acceptable to them.


But it is when deployed abroad that the Canadian jets fire shots in anger and when RCAF pilot incur the risk of being shot down!


playloud wrote:*Not survivable in contested airspace, ergo Canada won't be able to fulfill NATO obligations
I guess it depends on how good that EW is.


It doesn't matter how good EW you get from the allies. In the near future 4th gen fighter aircraft like the Gripen E won't be able to survive (without the huge risk of being shot down) during "day 1" of operations.
So unless Canada wants to be a 2nd rate air force like Brazil (or Germany) which either don't participate on NATO operations at all (like Brazil or even Germany for instance) or wants to sit out until the other NATO forces cleans enemy defenses - which would be politically unacceptable for Canada, a country which is usually among the first to participate on NATO/allied operations (which again is not the case of Germany for example) - the Gripen E or any other 4th gen fighter aircraft simply "won't cut it".


playloud wrote:*More expensive than the F-35 (they'll care about this one)
Not sure about that. You're comparing the whole contract cost of the Gripen, vs the flyway cost of the F-35.

In 2014, Brazil bought Gripen for $120 million per aircraft, armaments and services. It's only gotten more expensive since then, while the price of the F-35 continues to fall. By the time Canada pulls the trigger, it'll likely be under $80 million per aircraft, and the cost per flight hour will have fallen too. Let's call it $80 million. That's still a whopping 40 million cheaper vs. Gripen, and 40 million buys a lot of additional armaments and services..
The $120 million figure for the Gripen I think more closely compares to the ~$200 million contracts for the F-35. Though, maybe I am missing something, which is entirely possible.



I've seen contract cost figures ranging for the Brazil/Gripen E deal ranging from $130 million USD per aircraft here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... al-416586/
to $112.5 Million USD per aircraft here:
http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/gera ... ght-sweden

So I clearly understand where the $120 Million per aircraft figure comes from.
However while cost per aircraft regarding the Brazilian Gripen purchase seem to differ a bit from source to source, one thing doesn't differ much which are the "offsets" of such contract, which basically are:
Over 350 Brazilians—among them engineers and technicians—actively work in the technological tranfer program, which includes training programs in Sweden, Saab reported.

The initial contract stipulates the payment of 39.3 billion of Swedish crowns (some $4.05 billion) for the development and production of 36 aircraft, plus a technological transfer program enabling the Brazilian industry to develop Gripen jets in the future.

Brazilian engineers and technicians will travel to Sweden in October to begin training to assemble components and full aircraft. Saab plans to deliver all 36 Gripen NGs between 2019 and 2024.


So the only offsets that the Brazilian will receive apart from the aircraft itself is the training of engineers and technicians in order to assemble Gripens which could eventually be assembled in the future in Brazil.


Now lets look at the Belgium/F-35 contract:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aero ... SKCN1MZ1S0

Around $134 Million USD per aircraft for the world's most advanced fighter aircraft (by far!) and besides the aircraft contract includes:
The total price of the deal, including the jets, pilot training, hangars and upkeep until 2030 was worth 4 billion euros, Vandeput said, compared with the original budget of 4.6 billion euros.


Moreover, Brazil is a partner/member of the Gripen E program which certainly grant it some considerable price/cost discounts while Belgium is not a JSF partner/member!

So, gee let me see which one is "cheaper"... :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5993
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 23:14

the typical Gripen fanboyism for Canada is not rooted in reality. Where it is rooted is in Canadian nationalism/isolationism from what I can tell. Saab giving a lot of tech incentive and the idea of building fighters in Canada again takes a back seat to actual performance or cost or any other metric, in some cases the worse it performs the better as then Canada won't be asked to contribute further adding to the ideal isolationism.

the bottom line is that the Gripen E is not a good value. it costs less because it does less. and for a little more cost, one can get much more airplane.

And the value drops significantly as time increases. Gripen E will have a short and very limited production run. when that run is over, parts will become scarce, overhaul etc will cost more and the simple fact is when one takes the time in service out to 2 or 3 decades they quickly become relics, collectors items, and a novelty. And thats one of the many reasons they lose in big contests. its why they haven't sold big anywhere.

its entire reason to exist is a mirage.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 14:40

XanderCrews wrote:the typical Gripen fanboyism for Canada is not rooted in reality. Where it is rooted is in Canadian nationalism/isolationism from what I can tell. Saab giving a lot of tech incentive and the idea of building fighters in Canada again takes a back seat to actual performance or cost or any other metric, in some cases the worse it performs the better as then Canada won't be asked to contribute further adding to the ideal isolationism.


Yes, I agree with your assessment above which is "funny" because those critics/fanboys fully contradict themselves - They want Canada to be isolated from the US (and even from NATO) but these are also and generally the same people that do NOT want the Canadian forces to be equipped with the best and most advanced military equipment where logic would IMO and clearly say that if Canada was to have a more "isolationist/nationalist" stance (specially regarding the US) this could only be achieved if Canada (or the more precisely its Armed Forces) were to be equipped with the best and most modern equipment (and preferably in much bigger numbers).


XanderCrews wrote:the bottom line is that the Gripen E is not a good value. it costs less because it does less. and for a little more cost, one can get much more airplane.


With "it costs less", I imagine that you're comparing the Gripen E to aircraft like the Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon and not with the F-35A, right?

Because from the conclusion that you can read from my previous post, I have very strong doubts and reservations that the Gripen E is in anyway cheaper than the F-35A (the -B and -C variants of the F-35 may be a different case, thou).


XanderCrews wrote:And the value drops significantly as time increases. Gripen E will have a short and very limited production run. when that run is over, parts will become scarce, overhaul etc will cost more and the simple fact is when one takes the time in service out to 2 or 3 decades they quickly become relics, collectors items, and a novelty. And thats one of the many reasons they lose in big contests. its why they haven't sold big anywhere.

its entire reason to exist is a mirage.


Fully agree with the above.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests