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

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

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5667
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Nov 2018, 04:09

...Canada’s process to replace its CF-18 fighter jets stands as one of the strangest in the country’s history. It has witnessed four major decisions on the purchase of new fighter jets: in 2010, 2014, 2016 (for interim Super Hornets), and 2017 (for surplus Australian jets). Notably, the first three decisions were cancelled.

Even as the auditor general weighs in on the last episode, the current process to permanently replace the CF-18 fleet with 88 aircraft has avoided serious scrutiny. Like the interim buy, the entire process is fundamentally flawed and likely to produce a significantly poorer outcome for Canada.

The Liberal government’s fundamental flaw is that it has sought to oversee a fair competition where none is possible. Of the airframes considered, the F-35 offered the highest capability (by a significant margin) with the lowest lifetime cost, and due to its high international production rates (twice as many units as any of its competitors) has industrial benefits far exceeding Canadian offset requirements.

Many other nations have come to these conclusions; internationally, the F-35 has not lost a competition. In many cases, governments simply sole-sourced in order to avoid the potential expense of a competition with a foregone conclusion. In Canada’s case, the government has not sought to select the right option, but rather to create a vehicle for building political capital, using the façade of a fair and transparent competition process.

Upon coming to power, the Liberal government loosened the operational requirements to give an opportunity for other manufacturers to compete. In doing so, it undermined one of the strongest advantages of the F-35: its interoperability with NATO and Norad...




Morea at the jump! Hit it up before it disappears behind a paywall:


https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/11/21/ca ... ess/176933
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21745
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post22 Nov 2018, 04:35

I don't know why the article would 'disappear behind a paywall' if it is already available for free online; 3 page PDF below.
Attachments
Canadians should be concerned about fighter jet replacement process PP3 SHIMOOKA.pdf
(512.44 KiB) Downloaded 99 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 565
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Nov 2018, 10:40

It's just as well then that the US bought Alaska off Russia and that it is on the left hand side of Canada facing Russia ;).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21745
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post03 Dec 2018, 12:19

Puff Pieces about how great the Canadian Fast Jets are today but YMMV - you may be Canadian and I'm sorry about that.

Royal Canadian Air Force Review Today pp52 2018 reprinted [PRN] with some 80 pages about ASW & Helos removed.

The full 131 page PDF 21.6Mb may be downloaded here: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/20 ... today.html
Attachments
Royal Canadian Air Force Review Today pp52 PRN.pdf
(8.26 MiB) Downloaded 64 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post04 Dec 2018, 18:29

spazsinbad wrote:Puff Pieces about how great the Canadian Fast Jets are today but YMMV - you may be Canadian and I'm sorry about that.

Royal Canadian Air Force Review Today pp52 2018 reprinted [PRN] with some 80 pages about ASW & Helos removed.

The full 131 page PDF 21.6Mb may be downloaded here: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/20 ... today.html



That is just so sad.
Offline

go4long

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post07 Dec 2018, 16:28

The optimist in me sees this headline as being an oddly familiar number in budgeting terms, and hoping it's earmarked for the new fighter jet procurement program...of course, with the current government he could be earmarking it for almost anything (high security sock purchase program?)

"What the billions are being spent on is a mystery. A footnote is the only hint, suggesting the provision is for “anticipated Cabinet decisions not yet made and funding decisions related to national security, commercial sensitivity, trade agreements and litigation issues.”"

John Ivison: With 'non-announced' budgetary measures, Liberals effectively create a $9.5B slush fund
Deep in the fiscal update was a line that quietly ushers in the expenditure on 'non-announced measures.' What the billions are being spent on is a mystery
Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau speaks during a Calgary Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Telus Convention Centre on Tuesday November 27, 2018.Gavin Young/Postmedia
John Ivison
John Ivison

November 27, 2018
7:31 PM EST

Last Updated
November 29, 2018
9:29 AM EST
Filed under

Full Comment

Comment
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Email
More

Trying to keep track of every dollar Ottawa spends is a pseudo-science like the one practised by crypto-zoologists looking for Bigfoot — only the gullible would ever believe in a happy outcome.

Take last week’s fiscal update. To much fanfare, it announced $16.4 billion in new spending measures, principally the $14 billion on accelerated investment incentives to address competitiveness.

Yet on page 107 of the document, there is one line that quietly ushers in the expenditure of a further $9.5 billion on “non-announced measures.”

That money is now built into the fiscal framework, adding to the deficits that disappear over the government’s planning horizon.

What the billions are being spent on is a mystery. A footnote is the only hint, suggesting the provision is for “anticipated Cabinet decisions not yet made and funding decisions related to national security, commercial sensitivity, trade agreements and litigation issues.”

The opposition parties are not happy about the way the government is announcing — or non-announcing — such a large, fiscally material spending plan

Pierre-Olivier Herbert, press secretary to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, proved he has a sense of humour when he suggested the Liberal government has “set a new bar for transparency” in its financial statements.

It is true that the Trudeau government provides information on what happens between fall statements and budgets in a way its Conservative predecessor did not. But the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, worked at the Department of Finance in the 1980s and the Privy Council Office in the 1990s, and does not recall any previous government adjusting the fiscal framework without telling people what it is doing with the money.
In this file photo taken on November 18, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks at a press conference during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Port Moresby. PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

Herbert said the details will be released in due course — it is understood that the supply management package that will compensate dairy farmers for loss of market share due to the United States-Mexico-Canada free trade deal is included in the aggregate amount.

But the opposition parties are not happy about the way the government is announcing — or non-announcing — such a large, fiscally material spending plan.

Daniel Blaikie, the NDP’s Treasury Board critic, said it is understandable for any government anticipating a large expense, such as the settlement of a collective agreement, to budget for it while not disclosing the amount during negotiations.

But these measures have a five-year time horizon and provide no details for MPs to judge whether the spending is appropriate or not, he said.

The basis of the Westminster system is that ministers seek the prior sanction of Parliament, by outlining to legislators what they intend to spend money on

He noted that the $516 million of “non-announced measures” allocated in the 2018-19 budget is now forecast to be $1.75 billion.

“I do think this government is pioneering new ways to keep their spending out of the spotlight. It’s not consistent with their commitment to transparency,” he said.

Gerard Deltell, the Conservative Treasury Board critic, called the non-announced measures “a slush fund.”

“We’re talking about billions of dollars. I’ve very concerned. Governments do need a pillow to address emergency issues. But we’re now reading about $10 billion. It’s very tough to see exactly what they will do with that,” he said.

Page, now president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa, said there might be merit in the government letting Parliament know in advance that it is planning to adjust the fiscal planning framework for measures to be announced later.

John Ivison: Federal government can’t save the GM plant — or change the weather
John Ivison: Andrew Scheer’s ‘problematic’ leadership sparks concern among Conservatives
John Ivison: We may be in debt, but unshakeable optimist Bill Morneau believes all will be well

In the run-up to a general election, it will allow the government to make spending announcements without having to revise deficit projections upward.

But he pointed out it does not create confidence in the budgeting process.

No kidding. The basis of the Westminster system is that ministers seek the prior sanction of Parliament, by outlining to legislators what they intend to spend money on.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shakes hands with Minister of Finance Bill Morneau following the fiscal economic update in the House of Commons, in Ottawa on Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2018. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The government will still have to seek approval for spending but the Parliamentary Budget Office is looking into opposition concerns that new expenditures will be mulched into departmental spending, making it harder to reconcile down the road.

It certainly does not make following the money any easier.

That, at the end of the day, may be the purpose. The Liberals have a fiscal conundrum. Any credibility they have on managing the public finances rests on the federal debt-to-GDP number ticking downward over the next five years. According to the government’s figures it does just that — going from 30.9 per cent this year to 28.5 per cent by 2023-24.

This is a government that has increased spending by 22 per cent during its three years in office

Yet that rosy projection relies on the Liberals constraining direct program expenses (and thus deficits) over the next five years.

The fall statement suggests total direct program expenses will rise from $149 billion in 2018-19 to $161.1 billion in 2023-24 — a 7.5 per cent increase over five years.

But this is a government that has increased spending by 22 per cent during its three years in office.

The fiscal update says program expenses as a percentage of GDP will fall from 6.7 per cent to 6 per cent. That’s an austerity drive that would make Stephen Harper proud.

Does anyone in Canada believe that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are going to cut anything, beyond the commitment to their “fiscal anchor?”

Any takers should stretch their credulity still further and join the crypto-zoologists in their hunt for hidden animals.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 887
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Dec 2018, 07:03

go4long wrote:"What the billions are being spent on is a mystery. ...

A footnote is the only hint, suggesting the provision is for “anticipated Cabinet decisions not yet made and funding decisions related to national security, commercial sensitivity, trade agreements and litigation issues.” "


Wow, looks like Justine grasped the nettle and really stumped-up some cash for a first tranche of F/A-18A airframe life-extensions. Keep them under +3.8G and -2.2G, and they should be good to 2030.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1158
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 22:39

Bringing this food fight over to the Canadudes thread. Keeping the mud out of Australia ! :D
BP
blindpilot wrote:
ChippyHo wrote:Pity that you weren't taught any common sense - if you have to be taught about a sense of humor .... well the jokes on you!!


Since I was the one who couldn't resist the [sarc on] comment, I insist that I be equally chastised and accused of not being [sarc On] "Nice." (was there ever a better example of the Canadian problem?)

I knew I needed to put this on the Canadudes thread.
...
Note to Chippy. Hey us Yanks'll take full brunt of our political follies ! But you elect a clueless boy wonder, you gotta admit it is kinda funny. To all but the Canadian friends I worked with at NORAD at all ... I ache for them...

But but but ! We hear nothing from them because they were ordered to STFU! (btw they were treated really "nice"? really?)

So some one has to speak for your sons and daughters whose lives, the wine drinkers care nothing for. Someone who can't have their pension threatened. So it'll have the Yanks I guess. :D Chippy I'll meet you over at the endless Canadudes thread ...

MHO,
BP
Online

ChippyHo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 16:43
  • Location: Montreal

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 22:46

BP,
Respect for the thoughtful and ( :shock: )polite answer.
Look I happen to agree - our PM is a useless juvenile and NO i didn't vote for him or his party. Be that as it may - i color most politicians the same color - useless.
That does not give people a carte blanche to poop on the country. I have always felt that we Canucks could learn to be more like our Yankee cousins and be much more visibly patriotic.Ya we need to wave the flag more than at just hockey and curling tournaments!!!
My problem with Spaz' posts is that he attacks Canada - when really he should fire his load at the dumbass politicians

Rant done - back to regularly scheduled STUFF
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21745
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 00:39

I've answered the 'ChippyHo' accusation in the original Oz thread where it is in context with the other stuff not relevant.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 23:39

Oopsie!

Because when you can’t carry out training exercises, you really can’t carry out missions.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/art ... g/jpa6gejf
Attachments
C62FB531-1DB7-4FCB-8F73-DB923E978168.png
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Dec 2018, 03:01

Its worse when one is training at an outdated range since one would be training in unrealistic conditions. It follows calls for quite time for a range update. I suspect its linked to why this year's maple flag was cut short. Also its not the first time maple flag has been cancelled.

Tongue firmly in cheek, I'd opine the RCAF would have preferred to carry on Maple flag if only to see their future fighters in action when the RAAF is in town.
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests