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

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 12:40

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, shocking that Dassault pulled out.... :?


Actually I'm not shocked at all.
It seems that the only chance that the French have in winning competitions regarding the acquisition of certain/specific military equipment on western/NATO countries is by bypassing those same competition.
i.e. not entering in those same competitions where the customer would directly purchase the French equipment, this again without any competition.

Look at the fighter competition in Belgium for instance.
And actually the French also tried the same in Canada in the recent past where they offered their FREMM frigate (as the Canadian Future Surface Combatant ship) but only if it did avoid competition - once it was decided to keep with the competition the French withdraw their Frigate from it. Oh, these French.... :roll:


Now regarding the Canadian future fighter aircraft competition, I just hope that Saab follows the same trend and who knows, hopefully even Airbus as well...
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.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 12:50

hythelday wrote:How is Five Eyes and intelligence sharing relevant to fighters? US would not accept pictures made by Talios TGP?


The "Five Eyes excuse" is only that: A poorly invented excuse and pure BS!

As far as I know Belgium doesn't belong to the five eyes, does it?? So there you go... :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

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5190
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 13:55

ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, shocking that Dassault pulled out.... :?


Actually I'm not shocked at all.
It seems that the only chance that the French have in winning competitions regarding the acquisition of certain/specific military equipment on western/NATO countries is by bypassing those same competition.


I wonder how that makes the Rafale fangirls feel, knowing that even Dassault feels like the only way it can win is to try to avoid competing. :lol:
"There I was. . ."
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 14:45

sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Actually I'm not shocked at all.
It seems that the only chance that the French have in winning competitions regarding the acquisition of certain/specific military equipment on western/NATO countries is by bypassing those same competition.


I wonder how that makes the Rafale fangirls feel, knowing that even Dassault feels like the only way it can win is to try to avoid competing. :lol:


LOL, and once Saab and Airbus also withdraws from (or loses the) competition I also expect that a mass suicide will occur at BF4C. :mrgreen:
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

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 16:13

ricnunes wrote:
hythelday wrote:How is Five Eyes and intelligence sharing relevant to fighters? US would not accept pictures made by Talios TGP?


The "Five Eyes excuse" is only that: A poorly invented excuse and pure BS!

As far as I know Belgium doesn't belong to the five eyes, does it?? So there you go... :wink:


From what I understand it's not about allowing non "5 eyes" bunch get the "5 eyes" equipment, it's the other way around - "5 eyes" not choosing outsider equipment. But I am still not buying it because why on earth platform or sensor that the intel comes from matter to those who receive said intel? They should have stuck to NORAD excuse. I don't know the exact NORAD force structure, but I would much rather believe that NORAD interoperability put Rafale at a disadvantage (e.g. common weapons).

In this sense Finland will be watershed eval. Non-NATO, non-JSF partner, non-regular Foreign Military Aid client (the Israel excuse), nor is it a prominent regional ally (Australia, Japan, ROK excuse). Dassault has no leeway there - withdraw and receive a FOURTH strike (after Belgium, Denmark, Canada) or stay and lose on all counts in the most fair competition they will ever have.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 17:12

Here is a slide on Five-Eyes from the Canadian fighter replacement perspective.

Image

https://www.aeromontreal.ca/download/fc ... LETIER.pdf
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 07 Nov 2018, 18:06, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 17:44

Hmm, interesting. Looks like there might be some truth behind this statement.

So does it mean "5 eyes" countries don't what the French to know what they know about possible enemy? I assume "defensive system programming" is mostly EW stuff, maybe some radar NCTR techniques?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 17:56

If the 5E countries did not want to give France the info, then France would not have been given the opportunity to bid.

This was France not wanting to comply with 5E requirements on data sharing as it relates to the Rafale. They would have had to provide not only EW support, but also mission planning tools and datalinks that are 5E compatible.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 18:06

ricnunes wrote:The "Five Eyes excuse" is only that: A poorly invented excuse and pure BS!

I strongly disagree with that statement. It might be an excuse, but it's definitely not BS. Integration and data-handling is no joke, and can very well turn out to be most of the programming effort. Just take a brief look at the slide posted above. Even the validation costs alone for the code of every sensor on board, would be considerable. Never mind actually making any changes to adhere to the multitude of standards/requirements they have (and then testing/revalidating the entire weapons system).

90% of the software costs are in places, that at first look seem like unimportant details and side-effects, or "easy to add" features.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 18:07

It's not about the sensor itself, but the mission data used to program it.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 18:48

gideonic wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The "Five Eyes excuse" is only that: A poorly invented excuse and pure BS!

I strongly disagree with that statement. It might be an excuse, but it's definitely not BS.


Well, if you admit that it might be an excuse than you don't strongly disagree with me, don't you think? :wink:

Anyway, I may have exaggerated and chosen my words poorly when I said "pure BS" above.

In any case, and despite all the good point mentioned by some of you guys (namely and for example Spudman's slide and document) I don't think that being "5 eyes compliant" was the (main) reason for Dassault to leave the Canadian fighter competition. Or else and using the recent Canadian Future Combatant Ship (Frigate/Destroyer) which will also be another extremely important ISR platform within the Canadian Forces than Alion (Dutch) and Navantia (Spanish) would have long gave up from this competiton (which they ended up losing for BAe) like the French (again) did.

Or I could also say that if having "5 eyes compliant or origin equipment" was so vital and an eliminating factor than Canada wouldn't operate IAI Heron UAVs (from Israel) for example.

Or for that matter Australia wouldn't buy Submarines (another very important ISR platform) from France and so on...

Moreover France has a close relationship with the "5 eyes" which forms the "9 eyes" which is composed by the 5 eyes countries plus France, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway which IMO probably shows that there's at least an existing level of compliance between the 5 eyes and France.

(damn, so many eyes here. :mrgreen: )
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

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 19:19

hythelday wrote:How is Five Eyes and intelligence sharing relevant to fighters? US would not accept pictures made by Talios TGP?


For starters, who is going to provide EW and ELINT data for the ew systems? Whonis going to program them?
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 19:20

ricnunes wrote:
gideonic wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The "Five Eyes excuse" is only that: A poorly invented excuse and pure BS!

I strongly disagree with that statement. It might be an excuse, but it's definitely not BS.


Well, if you admit that it might be an excuse than you don't strongly disagree with me, don't you think? :wink:

Anyway, I may have exaggerated and chosen my words poorly when I said "pure BS" above.

In any case, and despite all the good point mentioned by some of you guys (namely and for example Spudman's slide and document) I don't think that being "5 eyes compliant" was the (main) reason for Dassault to leave the Canadian fighter competition. Or else and using the recent Canadian Future Combatant Ship (Frigate/Destroyer) which will also be another extremely important ISR platform within the Canadian Forces than Alion (Dutch) and Navantia (Spanish) would have long gave up from this competiton (which they ended up losing for BAe) like the French (again) did.

Or I could also say that if having "5 eyes compliant or origin equipment" was so vital and an eliminating factor than Canada wouldn't operate IAI Heron UAVs (from Israel) for example.

Or for that matter Australia wouldn't buy Submarines (another very important ISR platform) from France and so on...

Moreover France has a close relationship with the "5 eyes" which forms the "9 eyes" which is composed by the 5 eyes countries plus France, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway which IMO probably shows that there's at least an existing level of compliance between the 5 eyes and France.

(damn, so many eyes here. :mrgreen: )


In flight school, I went through a 5E class on being a POW. This was lessons learned from those taken prisoner in Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Somalia. This information was paid for in blood. It would not surprise me that the 5E would be unwilling to share information when the trading partner would not share equally valuable information that was paid for at the same price.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 19:33

citanon wrote:
hythelday wrote:How is Five Eyes and intelligence sharing relevant to fighters? US would not accept pictures made by Talios TGP?


For starters, who is going to provide EW and ELINT data for the ew systems? Whonis going to program them?


My guess is a "programming center" on Canadian soil (or the US if the F-35 is chosen).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5834
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Nov 2018, 07:03

citanon wrote:The posters on BF4C actually dug up some good information:

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/ ... -KRp5NKiUk

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.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... tition-to/

Federal officials and experts had already pointed out the challenges facing European companies in terms of winning the contract.

“Whatever aircraft we obtain has to be fully, seamlessly interoperable at the highest levels with the American Air Force and the rest of the U.S. defence establishment, which is going to be tougher for Europeans to do than it would be for the Americans," said Dave Perry, vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “There’s a way to do that, but it would also imply additional cost and integration risk.”


The federal government announced last month that it was giving six weeks to interested bidders to provide comment on a draft request for proposals (RFP), which lays out the requirements for the fighter jets.

In a briefing, federal officials said the government was willing to give European bidders additional leeway to meet mandatory requirements related to NORAD. In particular, the requirements for secure communications between Canadian and American aircraft and other military assets were modified to give all potential bidders additional time to meet them.

“We obviously have NATO and NORAD commitments, with NORAD probably being the bigger one, which means we have significant security requirements that are Canada-U.S.,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence.


And from Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/canada- ... FL2N1XI07R

France does not belong to the so-called Five Eyes group of nations that share top secret intelligence - Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. This would have made operating with U.S. forces complicated, the sources said.

Sweden’s Saab AB, one of the four remaining contenders, faces the same challenge with its Gripen jet.

The Airbus consortium, makers of the Eurofighter, includes Five Eyes member Britain



Lol jesus are they all on Suicide watch over there now?

In just shocked man. Dassault was going to build whole airplanes there with offsets in the elevnty gazillion range. SPECTRA is actually waaaay better than actual Stealth. Its stealth. just not F-35 stealth which isn't as good. and yet this simple requirement stopped them completely. Wow. Crazy. You would think with the tech to make a fighter invisible and best even more advance (allegedly) VLO airplanes they could handle this...

:roll:

Wow Guyz, do you think the Gripen is really done now?

Image
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ricnunes and 9 guests