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

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

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3368
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Mar 2021, 23:56

XanderCrews wrote:Thats off the top of my head. I wouldn't be rude or "play the man" its just simple facts. Gripen is the least advanced, waaayy too late gen 4.5 fighter that no one wants and is still years away anyway. its the least known, most risky design out there right now.


XanderCrews wrote:Not even the Uk Typhoon is 2 eyes compliant. And its from a NATO, 5/4 eyes nation and its been in service for decades.


DITTO! :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3368
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 00:37

spazsinbad wrote:Canadian Supplier Gastops Delivers 3,500th Engine Sensor 23 Mar 2021
https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-featur ... ensor.html


:thumb:


From the link above:
Pratt & Whitney’s F135 – which powers all three variants of the F-35 Lightning II – is the world’s most advanced fighter engine, providing operators with a significant technological advantage. With its advanced damage tolerant design and fully integrated prognostic health monitoring, made possible in part by Gastops’ sensors, the F135 has demonstrated a 93% reduction in unscheduled engine removals over 4th generation fighter engines.


The highlighted part above is an indication that the F-35 is in a good track to become even more reliable compared to 4th gen fighter aircraft.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 08:47

The biggest question should be does one really want to become the main bill payer of the Gripen program when its reins are in Sweden and Brazil. (I have a name for that position: sucker)

That applies to both Canada and Finland.

In Finland it's somewhat reassuring that they already identified the same scheme in the DX competition in the turn of the 90s. In that case it was assessed that Sweden is looking for someone to pay the development. I can only imagine what a wild ride the then offered Gripen A/B would've offered. Keeping in mind they were so incompatible (like e.g. Link 16 in the Gripen arrived 2007) that C/D was basically as different as Tranche 1 Typhoon seems to be from the later versions.

In Canada the Norad requirement hopefully is reason enough to thwart the folly. Losing access to the mission data and having to gather/develop them... yikes what a thought.
But I still unreasonably fear that growing the need to 88 fighters makes them look at the total costs in a weird way (multiple botched projects like the cancelled radar replacement with proven Ground Master 400s don't build confidence). Hopefully they can calculate the operational capability decifit in a way that doesn't reward having a good enough light task fighter instead of having an overmatch (F-35) in most tasks.

Realistically Boeing had a shot until the Bombardier debacle. They still thought that Trudeau was willing to pay whatever the cost. But that ridiculous price quote should've stopped the musical chairs for them. They don't offer anything interesting, no Loyal Wingman, no Growler. Just an expensive alternative and "60 billion dollars" of offsets from the civ Boeing business as usual. If it was a jobs program then it might matter. But the frigate deal already covers that political need. :wink:

Another interview subject summed up the issue: “In the FFCP, capability
may not be a determining factor in who wins, because it is an open competition with a variety of
factors being evaluated.” Instead, cost and ITB benefits may outweigh considerations of
technical capability and interoperability in the selection process

https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/ ... anadas.pdf (pg 86)
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7264
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 14:53

magitsu wrote:
Another interview subject summed up the issue: “In the FFCP, capability
may not be a determining factor in who wins, because it is an open competition with a variety of
factors being evaluated.” Instead, cost and ITB benefits may outweigh considerations of
technical capability and interoperability in the selection process

https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/ ... anadas.pdf (pg 86)


Yep and this is what gives me the cold sweats. Canada, in typical Canada fashion, may have set up a competition that will deliver them the opposite of the objectives and desires they hold in highest regard. HB Pencil here has mentioned this a few times and its enough to give me pause. F-35 should be an absolute slam dunk, instead...

:doh:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3368
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 14:55

magitsu wrote:But I still unreasonably fear that growing the need to 88 fighters makes them look at the total costs in a weird way (multiple botched projects like the cancelled radar replacement with proven Ground Master 400s don't build confidence). Hopefully they can calculate the operational capability decifit in a way that doesn't reward having a good enough light task fighter instead of having an overmatch (F-35) in most tasks.


I don't think there's much to be feared on that regard. Remember that cost is only 20% of the overall score which will select Canada's next fighter aircraft.
And even with these 20% there's absolutely no guarantee (and I don't believe) that the Gripen will win (again in 20% of the score) since the Gripen is actually more expensive than the F-35A in terms of acquisition (specially so, considering that Canada is a JSF/F-35 partner/member) and there's also no guarantee that the Gripen ends up being less expensive or considerably less expensive to maintain compared to the F-35A. And if you add up all the updates that the Gripen would need to be NORAD/NATO/5 Eyes/2 Eyes compliant already mentioned on previous posts then the Gripen may actually end up being much more expensive in terms of operational costs than the F-35A.

Regarding the remaining parts of the overall score, in 60% which is capability the F-35A should inevitably win hands down against any of its competitors (Super Hornet and Gripen) and in the remaining 20% (Industrial Benefits) the F-35A should also win hands down against the Gripen (watch the video that I posted earlier and compare it to a small assembly line in Nova Scotia proposed by Saab). IMO, the only contender that could eventually contest this last 20% part of the score would be the Super Hornet.


magitsu wrote:Realistically Boeing had a shot until the Bombardier debacle. They still thought that Trudeau was willing to pay whatever the cost. But that ridiculous price quote should've stopped the musical chairs for them. They don't offer anything interesting, no Loyal Wingman, no Growler. Just an expensive alternative and "60 billion dollars" of offsets from the civ Boeing business as usual. If it was a jobs program then it might matter. But the frigate deal already covers that political need. :wink:


Exactly.
Moreover who's the frigate deal main contractor? Lockheed Martin Canada! So what Lockheed Martin (thru it's Canadian subsidiary) invested in Canada and with all the jobs that will be created with the Frigate program is already a (very large/huge) industrial offset that IMO could somehow be considered as an industrial offset for the next Canadian future fighter.


magitsu wrote:
Another interview subject summed up the issue: “In the FFCP, capability
may not be a determining factor in who wins, because it is an open competition with a variety of
factors being evaluated.” Instead, cost and ITB benefits may outweigh considerations of
technical capability and interoperability in the selection process

https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/ ... anadas.pdf (pg 86)



I disagree with the assessment above. Again, note that 60% of the overall score is based on capability alone and 60% is of course a determining factor since more than half of the score or the majority of the score is again based on capability alone.

Below is an official Canadian government web site/page:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service ... -jets.html

The proposals will be rigorously evaluated on elements of capability (60%), cost (20%) and economic benefits (20%).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3368
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 15:19

XanderCrews wrote:Yep and this is what gives me the cold sweats. Canada, in typical Canada fashion, may have set up a competition that will deliver them the opposite of the objectives and desires they hold in highest regard. HB Pencil here has mentioned this a few times and its enough to give me pause. F-35 should be an absolute slam dunk, instead...

:doh:


I understand that when it comes to Canada and selecting military equipment - namely in case of the F-35 - may give people 'cold sweats' and I also have them from time to time regarding Canada's next/future fighter aircraft decision.

However I'm hopeful that Canada will select the F-35 because and together with what was said before, I will add up one more situation which draws lots of parallels with Canada's next/future fighter aircraft and the F-35 which is the recent selection of the Type 26 Frigate as the Canadian Surface Combatant Ship.
- Like the F-35, the Type 26 Frigate was clearly considered the most advanced of all contenders and thus it was the Canadian Navy's favorite and it was/is also the Canadian industry's favorite among all contenders. However some/many within the political power favored a ship design which was already in service (the so called "proven design") and the social media covered this "all the time". In the meanwhile rumors surfaced that the Type 26 was actually the favorite/leading contender despite not being a "proven design". And who ended up winning? Yeah, the Type 26.
- Very similar to the Type 26 Frigate, the F-35 is clearly considered the most advanced of all contenders and thus it's clearly the Canadian Air Force's favorite and it's also the Canadian industry's favorite among all contenders. However some/many within the political power favored a fighter aircraft that it's "proven" and "cheaper" and the social media covered this "all the time". In the meanwhile rumors surfaced that the F-35 is actually the favorite/leading contender and basically the only diference between the Type 26 Frigate and the F-35 is that the F-35 is actually a "proven design" and already in service with not only the USA but also with many other Canadian allied nations and on top of this the F-35 may end up being the cheapest (or at least not more expensive) among all contenders. So...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 17:09

ricnunes wrote:I disagree with the assessment above. Again, note that 60% of the overall score is based on capability alone and 60% is of course a determining factor since more than half of the score or the majority of the score is again based on capability alone.

Sure, but if you look at the dissertation it points out how they've had to succumb to F-35 competitors' demands about loosening the requirements. How overmatch is suddenly less valued and good enough can be competitive in many cases. Most of it is probably necessary to keep a proper looking competition happening (they might've not replied to the RFQ which could've made the Liberals look bad).

The FFCP SOR is less stringent than the SOR set for the sole-source procurement. While mandatory requirements must be met for a platform to be selected, rated requirements are assigned a certain weight in the bid evaluation criteria and do not necessarily need to be met for a bid to be successful.
The shift to rated requirements and the directive to not update others from their previous standards suggest that the Liberal government intended to make more aircraft capable of meeting baseline technical requirements – and for those same types to lose fewer points for failing to meet high-end technical requirements.
The decision to compress ratings also makes it difficult for technically advanced aircraft to score a corresponding number of points.

In the definition phase of a capital project, the SOR is changed into a draft RFP. This is then sent to suppliers for feedback until broad agreement is reached on the evaluation criteria. Changes to the FFCP RFP were made in the spring of 2019. During this period, representatives of Lockheed Martin’s competitors argued that early drafts unfairly favoured the F-35.
In response, the federal government increased the weighting for air-to-air capability and reduced it for air-to-ground capability, which had been seen to favour the F-35, while also boosting the value of sustainment, thereby increasing the penalty for the F-35’s high maintenance costs. At the time, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel (ADM MAT) Pat Finn acknowledged that these changes had been made at the request of Boeing, Airbus and Saab.

Canada’s capability requirements were changed not because of operational needs, but at the behest of self-interested
competitors. Their modification has helped to level the playing field at the F-35’s expense. The final RFP was released in July 2019.

In the RFP evaluation criteria, FFCP bids are judged on technical merit, cost and offsets to Canadian industry under the ITB policy. Technical merit accounts for 60 percent of possible points, while cost and industrial offsets account for a further 20 percent each. If a supplier offers low acquisition and in-service costs and a comprehensive industrial package, then its bid will score well on those criteria. If the platform being offered is less technically advanced – it meets the mandatory technical requirements but not each rated one – then it could still score well on the technical criteria, especially with the changes made to those requirements for the FFCP.
In such a scenario, the less advanced platform becomes competitive with a more advanced type that may be costlier and does not come with the same, tailorable economic package. Indeed, one interview subject argued that the ITB pillar was changed from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total bid to promote competition.


The new format and requirements for the FFCP suggest that the policy on the fighter file has clearly changed from the Conservatives to the Liberals. The issues discussed in this chapter call into question whether the FFCP is being held in good faith. Indeed, the federal government may now be managing the process with undue bias against the F-35, with one interview subject arguing that it has worked to minimize any perception of the FFCP favouring that type.

These dynamics are of consequence to the research question; it is unclear that the FFCP will weigh the choice between fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighters and the choice between American and European types. Another interview subject summed up the issue: “In the FFCP, capability may not be a determining factor in who wins, because it is an open competition with a variety of factors being evaluated.” Instead, cost and ITB benefits may outweigh considerations of
technical capability and interoperability in the selection process.

https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/ ... anadas.pdf (pg 84-86)

Sure they surprised everyone with the frigates, but they have to abide by that set 60% 20% 20% criteria. It remains to be seen how well that enables the selection of the best militarily performing product.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3368
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 21:08

magitsu wrote:Sure, but if you look at the dissertation it points out how they've had to succumb to F-35 competitors' demands about loosening the requirements. How overmatch is suddenly less valued and good enough can be competitive in many cases. Most of it is probably necessary to keep a proper looking competition happening (they might've not replied to the RFQ which could've made the Liberals look bad).

In response, the federal government increased the weighting for air-to-air capability and reduced it for air-to-ground capability, which had been seen to favour the F-35, while also boosting the value of sustainment, thereby increasing the penalty for the F-35’s high maintenance costs. At the time, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel (ADM MAT) Pat Finn acknowledged that these changes had been made at the request of Boeing, Airbus and Saab.

Canada’s capability requirements were changed not because of operational needs, but at the behest of self-interested
competitors. Their modification has helped to level the playing field at the F-35’s expense. The final RFP was released in July 2019.



Well, the dissertation (or at least the part quoted of it) also forgets to mention that the Industrial Benefits factor was drastically reduced in order to favor the F-35, specially after LM and the US government threatened to remove the F-35 from the Canadian competition. You remember this, no? (if not, read below)
Now the Industrial Benefits are only 20% where before it was planned to be much more than that and included guarantees that LM and the US could never provide to Canada.
You can read about this here for example:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... et-program

Canada already changed some of the industrial benefits criteria of its fighter jet competition in May to satisfy concerns from the U.S. government that the F-35 would be penalized or couldn’t be considered because of how that program was set up.


Besides, I continue to be puzzled when I see, watch or read someone saying that increasing the value of Air-to-Air missions compared to Air-to-Ground missions will favor the F-35 competitors and not the F-35!
Lets see, even if you increase the value of Air-to-Air missions compared to air-to-ground missions, this will only benefit the F-35 or will someone in their right mind believe that the F-35 is only superior to the competition in terms of Air-to-Ground missions?
Specially when compared to its competitors - The Super Hornet and Gripen E - the F-35 is far superior by having a much longer range (specially now that the Super Hornet CFTs are in doubt), by having stealth (why do people think that Stealth is only good for air-to-ground missions is simply beyond me?!) and by having superior sensors and ISR capabilities makes the F-35 a much better air-to-air aircraft than any of its competitors.

Moreover, that increasing value of Air-to-Air missions compared to air-to-ground missions is not guaranteed at all since the new fighter aircraft is also required to have the best compatibility with NATO during overseas mission and that basically means Air-to-Ground!


magitsu wrote:Sure they surprised everyone with the frigates, but they have to abide by that set 60% 20% 20% criteria. It remains to be seen how well that enables the selection of the best militarily performing product.


And again, the 60% 20% 20% criteria seems clearly to favor the F-35. If I'm not mistaken there have been sources within the F-35 competitors stating this.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

go4long

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 00:47

I personally like who the author cites as an example of the political bias against the F-35 in the above quote...

Everyone's favorite author...McColl.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 11:39

go4long wrote:I personally like who the author cites as an example of the political bias against the F-35 in the above quote...

Everyone's favorite author...McColl.

Yeah, there's a McColl reference indeed on page 106.
The competitive format of the FFCP has almost certainly been shaped by politically-motivated
bias against the F-35.402

402 At a recent public event, Conservative Party leadership candidate Peter MacKay said that he would
buy the F-35 if he became Prime Minister, Alex McColl, "Mackay Ironically Lining up against FighterJet Jobs in His Own Backyard," The Chronicle Herald (Calgary, AB), Opinion, 2020,
Offline

go4long

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 19:38

Airbus deemed only qualified supplier for new RCAF refueling and VIP aircraft
Author of the article:David Pugliese • Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date:Apr 01, 2021 • 3 hours ago • < 1 minute read

Airbus has emerged as the only qualified supplier for a new fleet of Canadian Forces refueling planes and VIP aircraft.

The project, which includes the aircraft used by the prime minister, is estimated to cost up to $5 billion. The new planes will replace the existing Polaris aircraft flown by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Airbus deemed only qualified supplier for new RCAF refueling and VIP aircraft

The Airbus aircraft is the A330 MRTT, which is a dual role refueling and transport plane.

More information to come on this developing story…

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... p-aircraft


So...we've awarded contracts for the hangars, and the tankers, and we've been talking about extending some of the runways...more and more it seems likely that this is all over but the crying.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 20:32

go4long wrote:
Airbus deemed only qualified supplier for new RCAF refueling and VIP aircraft
Author of the article:David Pugliese • Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date:Apr 01, 2021 • 3 hours ago • < 1 minute read

Airbus has emerged as the only qualified supplier for a new fleet of Canadian Forces refueling planes and VIP aircraft.

The project, which includes the aircraft used by the prime minister, is estimated to cost up to $5 billion. The new planes will replace the existing Polaris aircraft flown by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Airbus deemed only qualified supplier for new RCAF refueling and VIP aircraft

The Airbus aircraft is the A330 MRTT, which is a dual role refueling and transport plane.

More information to come on this developing story…

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... p-aircraft


So...we've awarded contracts for the hangars, and the tankers, and we've been talking about extending some of the runways...more and more it seems likely that this is all over but the crying.



Seems odd they haven’t evaluated any bids yet but have concluded Boeing won’t qualify.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26179
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 20:38

Have you seen the news about Boeing Tanker? It has not been good & promises to do better as time goes by nevertheless.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 21:14

spazsinbad wrote:Have you seen the news about Boeing Tanker? It has not been good & promises to do better as time goes by nevertheless.



If bad news about an aircraft was the criteria for failing to qualify to even submit a proposal, this thread would have died off years ago.

Just saying it is very unusual to be informed you are not qualified at this stage of a bidding process.
Offline

go4long

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 21:45

Who knows if Boeing even submitted a bid. As far as I know there's no planned VIP interior on the KC-46, and we're looking for a tanker that does both the VIP transport and tanker roles...same as we currently do with our CC-150. With that being the case, I can't think of any new production options other than the A330 MRTT
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests