F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[HB_Pencil]

Probably right Tacco... but perhaps once more unto the breach, and I'll walk away.

There are still a lot of problems that need to be worked out.  That's reality.  You keep attempting to pretend that's not reality, but it is.  The IOCs are even specious, given that it hasn't actually reached operational capability.

The F-35 will be an amazing aircraft, and we would do well with it.  Given our needs and what we'll realistically use it for, there are also other options that would serve us well.

I never said that there weren't issues. However there are issues with the F/A-18E.

What you've failed to grasp is those issues largely pertain to capabilities that the Super Hornet does not, nor will ever possess. It will never have a Autonomic Logistics System, nor will it possess sensor fusion capabilities. That's what Block 3I represents. So if you're saying the F-35 is not ready now, then you're basically saying the F/A-18E WILL NEVER be ready, ever, because those capabilities will never exist on that aircraft.

A true amalgam of the F/A-18E/F's capabilities would be F-35 Software Block 2B, though with a more limited range of weapons for the F-35 (the vast majority of which we don't even use). Even then, the F-35B is more capable than the F/A-18E: you don't get exercise reports where F/A-18Es can complete missions without losses against F-15s. Quite the opposite: in a report last year the DOT&E basically said that the F/A-18 is unable to operate in some of the more pressing threat environments.

And again, remember that you're basically advocating for an aircraft that is less capable than its replacement is right now (a 3F loaded F-35A)... and costs more and will wreck Canadian industry. But that doesn't matter to you because you can cling to the gossamer thin argumentation that somehow the F-35 is less capable now than the Super Hornet.

I've realized something as I was doing some chores and thinking about this discussion. I said earlier that your views represent what I see in the public. That's accurate, but I think I can go one deeper. What you represent to me is how we've gotten to a stage with the public: that anybody can google a couple of articles and then come and tell people who have real expertise in this field that you know better. That's shocking to me... you actually think that you somehow know better than the array of expertise in front of you.

If I asked you why the f-35 is deficient, you'd probably cite me some DOT&E or GAO report and a news paper article or two. It always makes me wonder how many of these reports have you actually read, outside of the F-35 program? Did you read the F-22 reports back in the early 2000s when they basically said the aircraft's avionics were already obsolescent? Yet in 2015 the aircraft was considered the most valuable asset flying in Syria because of its avionics capabilities.

Or in 1997 when they recommended the cancellation of the F/A-18E? Probably not. So you have really absolutely no basis to judge how accurate they are. I'm quite aware of the F-35's troubles, perhaps more than most. I can tell you the key challenges of ALIS, or some of the sensor fusion problems, ad have even spoken to people who they affect. However I also understand where they are in context to other programs and what their actual affects are.

In closing, I'd , you've shown absolutely no credibility on this topic beyond reposting articles that you have a very superficial understanding of. The reason why people are hostile to you is because anyone with a shred of expertise sees right through your argumentation...  and the only person who can't, is you.

 

[Altair]

It's not ready:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-islamic-state-the-f-35-ready-battle-syria-or-not-14243

Not much has changed since then.

It pretty much like the auditor general said a few years back.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5i

2.56 Since National Defence intended to recommend the purchase of the F-35 without competition, it had to identify and justify an appropriate exception to competitive tendering set out in the Government Contracts Regulations. One of the permitted exceptions is that “the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids.” Up until late May 2010, National Defence planned to use this exception, based in part on the conclusions from the 2008 options analysis and on its argument that it needed a fighter jet with fifth generation capability. While this exception was supported by PWGSC, ultimately the use of this exception was not supported inter-departmentally. National Defence then decided to use another of the permitted exceptions, that “only one person [that is, contractor(s)] is capable of performing the contract,” and the decision-making documents were reworded accordingly.

2.57 To support the use of this exception, National Defence was required to identify its operational requirements and to provide a full justification to PWGSC. Neither was provided to PWGSC in a timely manner, despite several requests from PWGSC. PWGSC was not given a copy of the statement of operational requirement until August 2010, well after the government had announced its decision to purchase the F-35 in July 2010. In fact, the statement was approved by the Chief of the Air Staff after decision-making documents related to the government’s July 2010 announcement had been signed and submitted for consideration by ministers. Then, according to National Defence, the formal options analysis was completed (as required as part of the Project Options Analysis Phase as shown in Exhibit 2.5), which concluded that the F-35 was the only available aircraft that could meet the mandatory requirements of the Canadian Forces. The conclusion was cited as the basis for the government’s decision to purchase the F-35without competition.

2.58 While decision-making documents were being finalized in late May 2010, PWGSC questioned National Defence’s assertion that no other aircraft met its mandatory requirements. Senior decision makers in PWGSC were informed that PWGSC had not been provided sufficient justification to support National Defence’s proposed procurement strategy and assertion that only one company was capable of performing the contract. In lieu of a finalized statement of operational requirement or a completed options analysis, PWGSC informed National Defence on 1 June 2010 that it would endorse the sole-source justification if National Defence provided a letter confirming National Defence’s requirement for a fifth generation fighter and confirming that the F-35 is the only such aircraft available. The same day, National Defence provided such a letter. There were no other supporting documents. By this time, decision-making documents had already been signed in both National Defence and PWGSC. It is important to note that the term “fifth generation” is not a description of an operational requirement.

2.59 We found that National Defence engaged PWGSC late in the decision-making process and hampered PWGSC’s ability to carry out its responsibilities as contracting authority to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. At the same time, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis. We believe this has compromised an important control in the procurement process: independent validation of a proposed procurement strategy.

2.60 In our view, many of the steps and documents used to support the government’s 2010 decision were of little consequence, because the key questions of whether to procure the F-35 and whether to run a competition were effectively determined by decisions taken much earlier, calling into question the integrity of the process. Not only were they of little consequence, they might also have been unnecessary if National Defence had sought government approval at an earlier stage to be completely exempt from the requirement to fit the procurement into one of the specified exceptions to competitive tendering. Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition.

There were those in government and those in DND who see the F35 as the only aircraft to replace the CF 18s.

Nothing you say, nothing you post, no amount of evidence to the contrary or evidence of advantages for other aircraft will matter. They will either be discounted as inaccurate or you will be slammed for not being a sme. Probably both.


Trust them, they have the experience. Well, according to the AG trusting DND to be impartial and follow the rules is one of the reasons we are here today.

And that's one of the reasons the public don't trust the experts on this. To the public the F35 is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum.

Clearly those attitudes have not changed and the F35 is the only jet for Canada, all others are subpar death traps that will kill our pilots and the F35 must win a open competition or LM will sue us into bankruptcy.

Your opinion, any differing opinion, does not matter, worst, it is unwanted. So let it go. Let them go on about what they want to hear. You are doing yourself no favors here by continuing to discuss it because nobody is going to change their mind.

Seriously, let it go. You're just upsetting people at this point.

 

[Loachman]

There were those in government and those in DND who see the F35 as the only aircraft to replace the CF 18s.

It was, and remains, the only reasonable choice, as the Danes had recently confirmed.

no amount of evidence to the contrary or evidence of advantages for other aircraft will matter.

What "evidence"? What "advantages for other aircraft"?

They will either be discounted as inaccurate or you will be slammed for not being a sme. Probably both.

One wonders why. Hmmm...

all others are subpar death traps that will kill our pilots

The other aircraft will, indeed, put Pilots at risk in a full-blown conventional war, yes, so it is reasonable to expect that some will die.

That can be avoided by selecting the correct aircraft.

Let them go on about what they want to hear. You are doing yourself no favors here by continuing to discuss it because nobody is going to change their mind.

If there is a genuine problem with the aircraft, then we certainly do not mind hearing about it. Not all reporters are competent to write about aviation matters, and not all are bias-free, so sources have to be considered. So far, there are still no fatal flaws with the aircraft, and shortcomings uncovered during the test phase - which is exactly the reason for a test phase - continue to be corrected. Currently "ready" or not, the machine has just demonstrated its stealth capabilities more than adequately. In that regard, it is already well ahead of any other competitor.

Seriously, let it go. You're just upsetting people at this point.

Upset? Hardly. Exasperated? Somewhat.

At least, if we ever have to defend Dien Bien Phu or somewhere similar, I have a candidate to suggest.


Edited to correct formatting error.

 

[jmt18325]

You mean, except for 8 months passing and the USAF declaring a Sqn IOC?

I am still curious, since HB absolutely demolished your love affair with the Super Hornet, which other fighter are you now pushing for Canada and why?

It was already IOC at the time. 

I don't have a love affair with the super hornet, and no one demolished anything.  I'm going to trust the US Navy more than people on the Internet.  I've said all along that the F-35 is superior to everything else - when it's ready.  The reality is, all of the aircraft are capable, and the Super Hornet is the safest choice if we're looking for little risk in terms of delivery and known performance.

I have - btw - always believed we should hold an open competiton, no matter what Trudeau or Anyone may have said.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It pretty much like the auditor general said a few years back.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5i
There were those in government and those in DND who see the F35 as the only aircraft to replace the CF 18s.

And what does the Public know about National Defence?  Altair, let me ask you a question, when you're sick or injured who do you go see to treat your injury/illness?  I would reckon you go speak to a doctor, who is an expert in their respective profession.

Lets take it to another profession, if you need legal advice/help, who do you speak with?  A lawyer perhaps?  Again, an expert in their respective profession.

Why is it then that the average Canadian, everyone from some posters on this forum, all the way to the PMO of Canada chooses to ignore the opinion of experts on matters of National Defence?  Officers and Senior NCOs with 30+ years of experience in conflict management and skilled in the art of war.  No, we would rather base our National Defence policy off the experiences of a High School teacher?

I'm not trying to degrade the PM here or chastise the Liberal Party, personally I think they've done a pretty good job so far.  They are certainly far less controlling than the previous government and actually allow the department to carry on with day to day business, aka they're exercising a bit of mission command and they should be commended for that. 

What I am sick and tired of though, is the total lack of respect shown to the profession of arms in this country.  This lack of respect is apolitical as well.  Every Tom, Dick and Harry out there thinks he knows how to do our job better than you, I or even the CDS do.

 

Nothing you say, nothing you post, no amount of evidence to the contrary or evidence of advantages for other aircraft will matter. They will either be discounted as inaccurate or you will be slammed for not being a sme. Probably both.

If this were actually the case, you and jmt would have both been banned long ago.  As for evidence to the contrary, where is it?  I haven't seen you or jmt post anything of any relevance other than conjecture up to this point?  There are posters on this forum who have advanced training, qualifications and years of experience in dealing with these matters, yet you and a few others choose to ignore that experience in favour of political sound bites and conjecture. 

Trust them, they have the experience. Well, according to the AG trusting DND to be impartial and follow the rules is one of the reasons we are here today.

And that's one of the reasons the public don't trust the experts on this. To the public the F35 is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum.

Clearly those attitudes have not changed and the F35 is the only jet for Canada, all others are subpar death traps that will kill our pilots and the F35 must win a open competition or LM will sue us into bankruptcy.

What an outlandish statement to make, particularly the part about all others being subpar death traps.

Your opinion, any differing opinion, does not matter, worst, it is unwanted. So let it go. Let them go on about what they want to hear. You are doing yourself no favors here by continuing to discuss it because nobody is going to change their mind.

Seriously, let it go. You're just upsetting people at this point.

If the opinion was unwanted, you would have been banned already.  By having an opinion though, you have to show that you're willing to have a discussion on the matter.  If you're going to push the experts then be prepared to receive push back and be able to provide counterpoints.  Taking your blanket and crying in the corner is not providing a counterpoint.


 

 

[Jarnhamar]

when you're sick or injured who do you go see to treat your injury/illness?  I would reckon you go speak to a doctor, who is an expert in their respective profession.

Lets take it to another profession, if you need legal advice/help, who do you speak with?  A lawyer perhaps?  Again, an expert in their respective profession.

Why is it then that the average Canadian, everyone from some posters on this forum, all the way to the PMO of Canada chooses to ignore the opinion of experts on matters of National Defence?

A surprising number would probably go to WebMD or online lawyer chat rooms  ;D

I commented in the other thread about the problem with the F35 is Facebook and this is the result IMO.  Not specifically Facebook alone but any social media where joe blow puts together "facts" in a video and posts it where people share it over and over. A lot of people take the shit they read on SM as gospel and run with it.  Their facts are from a well edited (or sometime snot) video from FighterAce69.

The F35 online debate is really just an extension of any number of conspiracy theories. People seem to get off on arguing it to death and trolling other people insistently. JMs opinion vs informed opinion comes to mind.

 

[CougarKing]

Here we go:

Defense News

Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat
Valerie Insinna, Defense News 1:16 p.m. EDT August 2, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Air Force on Tuesday declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for battle, fifteen years after Lockheed Martin won the contract to make the plane.

The milestone means that the service can now send its first operational F-35 formation — the 34th Fighter Squadron located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — into combat operations anywhere in the world. The service, which plans to buy 1,763 F-35As, is the single-largest customer of the joint strike fighter program, which also includes the U.S. Marine Corps, Navy and a host of governments worldwide.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Loachman]

I'm going to trust the US Navy more than people on the Internet.

Isn't what you trust the US Navy with delivered via the same Internet, and also by people thereon? Or do you hang around with them on weekends?

Do you trust these US Navy people using the Internet more than CF people using the same Internet? Why?

I have never met any of these US Navy people, but I do know some of the other posters here.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm going to trust the US Navy more than people on the Internet.

The same US Navy that is replacing aging Super Hornets with the F-35C?  ???

 

[jmt18325]

Last I heard, the F-35C was replacing the Hornet, and not the Super Hornet.  The operating timeline of the Super Hornet is, per statements by US Navy brass, being pushed back to 2040, perhaps beyond.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Indeed, F-35C to replace legacy Hornets; F/A-XX (if happens) to replace Supers, now planned to fly into 2040s:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18840/us-navy-struggling-to-keep-hornet-fighters-flying/
http://www.defensetech.org/2014/11/20/navy-plans-for-fighter-to-replace-the-fa-18-hornet-in-2030s/

...
The Navy had been planning for the Super Hornets to serve well into the 2030s, but now service leaders say that timeline will need to extend into the 2040s. Manazir explained that the Navy plans to begin buying 20 F-35Cs a year by 2020...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f35c-delays.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Altair]

And what does the Public know about National Defence?  Altair, let me ask you a question, when you're sick or injured who do you go see to treat your injury/illness?  I would reckon you go speak to a doctor, who is an expert in their respective profession.

Lets take it to another profession, if you need legal advice/help, who do you speak with?  A lawyer perhaps?  Again, an expert in their respective profession.

Why is it then that the average Canadian, everyone from some posters on this forum, all the way to the PMO of Canada chooses to ignore the opinion of experts on matters of National Defence?  Officers and Senior NCOs with 30+ years of experience in conflict management and skilled in the art of war.  No, we would rather base our National Defence policy off the experiences of a High School teacher?

I'm not trying to degrade the PM here or chastise the Liberal Party, personally I think they've done a pretty good job so far.  They are certainly far less controlling than the previous government and actually allow the department to carry on with day to day business, aka they're exercising a bit of mission command and they should be commended for that. 

What I am sick and tired of though, is the total lack of respect shown to the profession of arms in this country.  This lack of respect is apolitical as well.  Every Tom, Dick and Harry out there thinks he knows how to do our job better than you, I or even the CDS do.

 
If this were actually the case, you and jmt would have both been banned long ago.  As for evidence to the contrary, where is it?  I haven't seen you or jmt post anything of any relevance other than conjecture up to this point?  There are posters on this forum who have advanced training, qualifications and years of experience in dealing with these matters, yet you and a few others choose to ignore that experience in favour of political sound bites and conjecture. 

What an outlandish statement to make, particularly the part about all others being subpar death traps.

If the opinion was unwanted, you would have been banned already.  By having an opinion though, you have to show that you're willing to have a discussion on the matter.  If you're going to push the experts then be prepared to receive push back and be able to provide counterpoints.  Taking your blanket and crying in the corner is not providing a counterpoint.

If I'm sick I see a doctor. Damn right I do.

Same way that if canada needs some bombs dropped from the sky or to shoot down other fighter jets the air force would be called in.

But if that same doctor informed me that he needed a MRI machine for their family practice and taxpayers should foot the bill I would be skeptical.

When people say we need one of the priciest jets on the market the public, the taxpayer,has a right to be skeptical. Especially when the AG come around and says DND rigged the process in favor of said priciest jet from day one.

This has nothing to do about ignoring the opinion of the experts at DND. This has everything to do about those experts circumventing the rules and rigging the process to the point where only one jet could even be considered when there should have been a open competition from the get go.

The experts cannot be trusted to be unbiased in a case where they need to be unbiased. And to the public it just looks like a problematic expensive jet that DND is ordering itself because it can.

All I'm saying is that it's clear those attitudes still exists, the same attitudes of trust us, we know best, we are the experts, get this jet, all others be damned. The same attitude that was discovered by the AG during his investigation into this mess.

 

[RCPalmer]

And what does the Public know about National Defence?  Altair, let me ask you a question, when you're sick or injured who do you go see to treat your injury/illness?  I would reckon you go speak to a doctor, who is an expert in their respective profession.

Lets take it to another profession, if you need legal advice/help, who do you speak with?  A lawyer perhaps?  Again, an expert in their respective profession.

Why is it then that the average Canadian, everyone from some posters on this forum, all the way to the PMO of Canada chooses to ignore the opinion of experts on matters of National Defence?  Officers and Senior NCOs with 30+ years of experience in conflict management and skilled in the art of war.  No, we would rather base our National Defence policy off the experiences of a High School teacher?

I'm not trying to degrade the PM here or chastise the Liberal Party, personally I think they've done a pretty good job so far.  They are certainly far less controlling than the previous government and actually allow the department to carry on with day to day business, aka they're exercising a bit of mission command and they should be commended for that. 

What I am sick and tired of though, is the total lack of respect shown to the profession of arms in this country.  This lack of respect is apolitical as well.  Every Tom, Dick and Harry out there thinks he knows how to do our job better than you, I or even the CDS do.

I see where you are coming from, but I think we must be careful of being too dismissive of the opinions, values and concerns of the public. 

I think you will find that in general there is a lack of public understanding, or as you have phrased, respect for virtually every profession.  Many people think they can tell a good teacher from a bad one because they went to school.  People have all sorts of ideas on how fire or police services could be more efficiently or more economically delivered.  Lots of people think that the primary role of a pharmacist is to take pills from a large bottle and count them into smaller ones.  Most people think that the primary job of social workers is to take people's kids away which in no way reflects the diversity of that profession and ignores the fact that most of the people in involved in that process (primarily CFSA case workers in AB) aren't social workers at all.

These are largely uninformed opinions, but they still have their place in the civil discourse because they are reflective of the values of society they serve, or (in the case of the private sector), service.  I would try not to take it personally.

In any case, as a member of the public you might not be an expert, but you are still a part of the system, and your opinion still matters.  For example, you might not have an informed opinion on Walmart's supply chain management system, but you can (indirectly) favour an alternate supply chain model by shopping at Amazon.  While most of us are not experts in health care, no competent health authority in the country would try to build a hospital, or establish a new outpatient program without some attempt at public consultation. 

In our democratic society, questions like why we have an Army, how will we defend our borders (which informs our fighter purchase decision to an extent), and what kind of international operations we will become involved in are fair game for public debate, and the output of that debate (which occurs in the H of C, in the media, around the water cooler, and on Army.ca) has an impact on the CAF's resourcing, tasks and force structure.  Within my lifetime that has mostly meant that little was spent on defence precisely because our deficiencies were not hot topics of public debate.  While I would love to see defence policy formed in a vacuum by the luminaries of our day, that simply is not how it works. 

In this way, I think that the recent round of defence consultations was a great initiative, and I will be curious to see what comes of it.  I am in no way advocating that the department attempt to craft a defence policy or select the next generation fighter based on the aggregated opinions expressed in those web forums.  However, I still think they are valuable in that they do assist in capturing those values, and showing the diversity of opinion among Canadians. 

The part that (in my opinion) has fallen apart is the relationship between the experts, bureaucrats, the politicians and the public.  Perhaps if we had a better informed and integrated military academic community, the public debate would be more robust, which would create demand for more nuanced and considered defence platforms from our politicians.  I'm not holding by breadth, but one can always hope...

 

[GR66]

I'm not familiar with the contents of the original tender for the aircraft but how exactly was it rigged to suit only the F-35? 

Was it really a case of tailoring the requirements to the F-35 when ANY of the competing aircraft would do, or was it a case of the 5th generation technology in the F-35 re-defining what is the minimum requirement for a modern combat aircraft that will see use for several decades to come? 

Were the DND "cheerleaders" for the F-35 being cute and "situating the estimate" as they say in favour of their preferred choice, or was it a case of experts in the field understanding that a major shift in technology has taken place and abandoning the outdated in favour of the new "standard"?

Would it have made sense for a military in the 1920's to force their Cavalry Corps to consider Hussars, Dragoons and Lancers as acceptable options for their forces when tanks had effectively made them obsolete?  Wooden sailing ships for the navy when ironclad steamers made their debut?  Tethered observation balloons for the air force when aircraft became available?

Maybe the 5th Generation proponents have it wrong and these advanced sensor fusion technologies really won't really redefine air warfare.  However there are a lot of countries willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that they will. 

 

[Altair]

I'm not familiar with the contents of the original tender for the aircraft but how exactly was it rigged to suit only the F-35? 

Was it really a case of tailoring the requirements to the F-35 when ANY of the competing aircraft would do, or was it a case of the 5th generation technology in the F-35 re-defining what is the minimum requirement for a modern combat aircraft that will see use for several decades to come? 

Were the DND "cheerleaders" for the F-35 being cute and "situating the estimate" as they say in favour of their preferred choice, or was it a case of experts in the field understanding that a major shift in technology has taken place and abandoning the outdated in favour of the new "standard"?

Would it have made sense for a military in the 1920's to force their Cavalry Corps to consider Hussars, Dragoons and Lancers as acceptable options for their forces when tanks had effectively made them obsolete?  Wooden sailing ships for the navy when ironclad steamers made their debut?  Tethered observation balloons for the air force when aircraft became available?

Maybe the 5th Generation proponents have it wrong and these advanced sensor fusion technologies really won't really redefine air warfare.  However there are a lot of countries willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that they will.

2.56 Since National Defence intended to recommend the purchase of the F-35 without competition, it had to identify and justify an appropriate exception to competitive tendering set out in the Government Contracts Regulations. One of the permitted exceptions is that “the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids.” Up until late May 2010, National Defence planned to use this exception, based in part on the conclusions from the 2008 options analysis and on its argument that it needed a fighter jet with fifth generation capability. While this exception was supported by PWGSC, ultimately the use of this exception was not supported inter-departmentally. National Defence then decided to use another of the permitted exceptions, that “only one person [that is, contractor(s)] is capable of performing the contract,” and the decision-making documents were reworded accordingly.

2.57 To support the use of this exception, National Defence was required to identify its operational requirements and to provide a full justification to PWGSC. Neither was provided to PWGSC in a timely manner, despite several requests from PWGSC. PWGSC was not given a copy of the statement of operational requirement until August 2010, well after the government had announced its decision to purchase the F-35 in July 2010. In fact, the statement was approved by the Chief of the Air Staff after decision-making documents related to the government’s July 2010 announcement had been signed and submitted for consideration by ministers. Then, according to National Defence, the formal options analysis was completed (as required as part of the Project Options Analysis Phase as shown in Exhibit 2.5), which concluded that the F-35 was the only available aircraft that could meet the mandatory requirements of the Canadian Forces. The conclusion was cited as the basis for the government’s decision to purchase the F-35without competition.

2.58 While decision-making documents were being finalized in late May 2010, PWGSC questioned National Defence’s assertion that no other aircraft met its mandatory requirements. Senior decision makers in PWGSC were informed that PWGSC had not been provided sufficient justification to support National Defence’s proposed procurement strategy and assertion that only one company was capable of performing the contract. In lieu of a finalized statement of operational requirement or a completed options analysis, PWGSC informed National Defence on 1 June 2010 that it would endorse the sole-source justification if National Defence provided a letter confirming National Defence’s requirement for a fifth generation fighter and confirming that the F-35 is the only such aircraft available. The same day, National Defence provided such a letter. There were no other supporting documents. By this time, decision-making documents had already been signed in both National Defence and PWGSC. It is important to note that the term “fifth generation” is not a description of an operational requirement.

2.59 We found that National Defence engaged PWGSC late in the decision-making process and hampered PWGSC’s ability to carry out its responsibilities as contracting authority to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. At the same time, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis. We believe this has compromised an important control in the procurement process: independent validation of a proposed procurement strategy.

2.60 In our view, many of the steps and documents used to support the government’s 2010 decision were of little consequence, because the key questions of whether to procure the F-35 and whether to run a competition were effectively determined by decisions taken much earlier, calling into question the integrity of the process. Not only were they of little consequence, they might also have been unnecessary if National Defence had sought government approval at an earlier stage to be completely exempt from the requirement to fit the procurement into one of the specified exceptions to competitive tendering. Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition.

what do you think?

 

[GR66]

what do you think?

I think it looks like DND was incompetent in properly communicating its requirements between two bureaucracies and the bean counters at PWGSC were not capable of understanding the paradym shift from 4th Generation to 5th Generation fighters. 

Prepare a list of specifications for a horse and apply it to a tank.  Are horses faster than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses cheaper to purchase than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses cheaper to maintain than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses easier to transport to a potential conflict zone than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses easier to maintain than early tanks?  It may be questionable but certainly they don't require a new infrastructure.  Can horses (of equivalent lifetime dollar value) transport to combat a similar amount of firepower as early tanks?  Possibly...over the right terrain and possibly better long distance transport overall.  Are horses as survivable on an industrial battlefield as early tanks?  No.

So, horses may beat early tanks in many areas of traditional measure...but clearly a tank is understood to be superior to horses in combat.  Is that what the people behind selection of the F-35 are seeing that the people at PWGSC can't see from their spreadsheets and check-boxes? 

 

[Altair]

I think it looks like DND was incompetent in properly communicating its requirements between two bureaucracies and the bean counters at PWGSC were not capable of understanding the paradym shift from 4th Generation to 5th Generation fighters. 

Prepare a list of specifications for a horse and apply it to a tank.  Are horses faster than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses cheaper to purchase than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses cheaper to maintain than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses easier to transport to a potential conflict zone than early tanks?  Yes.  Are horses easier to maintain than early tanks?  It may be questionable but certainly they don't require a new infrastructure.  Can horses (of equivalent lifetime dollar value) transport to combat a similar amount of firepower as early tanks?  Possibly...over the right terrain and possibly better long distance transport overall.  Are horses as survivable on an industrial battlefield as early tanks?  No.

So, horses may beat early tanks in many areas of traditional measure...but clearly a tank is understood to be superior to horses in combat.  Is that what the people behind selection of the F-35 are seeing that the people at PWGSC can't see from their spreadsheets and check-boxes?

So rig the process instead of hope the tank wins out in a open competition because it would serve the greater good?

 

[Kirkhill]

One of the permitted exceptions is that “the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids.” Up until late May 2010, National Defence planned to use this exception, based in part on the conclusions from the 2008 options analysis and on its argument that it needed a fighter jet with fifth generation capability. While this exception was supported by PWGSC, ultimately the use of this exception was not supported inter-departmentally

Who changed their mind on procedure?

An options analysis was done in 2008.  A conclusion was drawn.  A decision was made.  The procedure was chosen.  The procedure was deemed permissible.

Something changed in 2010.

Sole source contracts are, patently, not illegal, nor are they not permitted.

Further to GR66s point:

The "options analysis" compared a Clydesdale, a Morgan, an Arabian and a Tank.

After considering the options and considering what the Tank brought to the field in comparison to the horses, the decision was made to spend the money on the Tank.

 

[Altair]

Who changed their mind on procedure?

An options analysis was done in 2008.  A conclusion was drawn.  A decision was made.  The procedure was chosen.  The procedure was deemed permissible.

Something changed in 2010.

Sole source contracts are, patently, not illegal, nor are they not permitted.

Further to GR66s point:

The "options analysis" compared a Clydesdale, a Morgan, an Arabian and a Tank.

After considering the options and considering what the Tank brought to the field in comparison to the horses, the decision was made to spend the money on the Tank.

selective reading?

You don't see how

2.56 Since National Defence intended to recommend the purchase of the F-35 without competition, it had to identify and justify an appropriate exception to competitive tendering set out in the Government Contracts Regulations. One of the permitted exceptions is that “the nature of the work is such that it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids.”

doesn't hold water?

When it comes to procurement there has to be a open competition unless there are certain conditions for a exclusion.

DND more or less misled PW in order to get that exemption.

 

[Good2Golf]

what do you think?

I think that even the OAG has her/his biases and critiques as they feel, based in part on the influence/story that one Department may pitch, vice another.  PWGSC seems to have successfully told the "woe is us, they never talked to us" story to the OAG, and thus a fair flavour of the report was written that way.

Big picture, 1997, Chretien's government joins Canada into the nascent JSF Program, noting the benefits to the Canadian aerospace industry as well as...the competitive nature of the program.  Four years later (2001), the JSF competition (there was a competition, no matter how much Alan Williams tries to convince people there wasn't) selects Lockheed's YF-35 over Boeing's YF-32 as the design upon which the JSF will continue.  Canada stays in the program, in fact it ups the ante in 2002 by confirming it was moving into Phase 2 - System Development and Demonstration and then ADM(Mat) Alan Williams signs over to the program almost 1/6 Billion dollars to stay in the game.  So to date, both Canada's entry into the initial Capability Development phase (1997) and transition into the System Development and Demonstration phase (2002) were officialized by Chretien's Liberal government of the day.  Come 2005 and a new government takes power, but stays on course and one year later, in 2006, continues Canada's commitment to the program by remaining in the Program for the third and final phase: Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (takes the output of the SDD phase, continues required development and adds production and sustainability to programmatic involvement).  Even in 2006, no one has yet flagged JSF as a program that Canada should no longer be involved with, and no one critiques Canada for signing onto the PSFD phase.  Alan Williams only becomes heard essentially in 2012, when his article,"Canada, Democracy and the F-35" is published in the public (ISBN: 978-1-55339-322-1).  People (OAG and Alan Williams included) critiqued in the 2012 onwards timeframe DND's then (2006) ADM(Mat), Dan Ross, for having pre-judged the procurement strategy...quoting (2012) from Mr. Ross' (2006) briefing note to Minister O'Connor, "The JSF family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered."

Many might reasonably think that's armchair quarter-backing at its finest.

Anyway, the following article, officially form a 2010 archive, makes for an interesting read as to what information was widely available (and one must assume what other documents were known to Departments other than DND, but not formally acknowledged by those departments.  Note that many speak to 5th Generation never being formally defined.  Within the existing and also the current procurement system, general, high-level mandatory requirements (HLMRs) such as those listed below, is as much detail often as provided.  A Statement of Requirement (SOR), Requirement Specification (RS), Technical Specification (TS) and Statement of Work (SoW) all follow the higher-level requirements. 

Link: ARCHIVE - Canada's Next Generation Fighter Capability : The Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II ( http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=548059 )

Archived - Canada's Next Generation Fighter Capability : The Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

The Canada First Defence Strategy states that the Canadian Forces will acquire a next-generation fighter capability that will help them carry out their core missions of defending the sovereignty of Canadian and North American airspace through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and providing Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations.

Canada will acquire an aircraft fully interoperable with our key allies to effectively conduct joint operations through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or a coalition. At home, the Canadian Forces will acquire a robust aircraft, capable of operating across Canada's vast geography and under harsh and varying weather conditions. A next generation fighter with stealth technology is an extremely effective deterrent against challenges to Canadian sovereignty.

In July 2010, the Government of Canada announced it is acquiring the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35, a fifth generation fighter jet, to replace its fourth generation fleet of CF-18s, which are expected to reach the end of their operational life in the 2017-2020 timeframe. Delivery of the new aircraft is expected to start in 2016.

The F-35 is the only available fifth generation aircraft that meets the Canadian Forces's need for a next-generation fighter. The acquisition of the F-35 will help the Canadian Forces operate effectively to defend against the threats of the 21st century at home and abroad.

The F-35 is less visible to radar, providing very low observable stealth, has integrated sensor fusion that provides the pilot with all available information at a glance, and high-capacity, secure net-enabled operations that allows all F-35 aircraft to communicate with each other and share data in a secure environment.

What constitutes a fifth generation fighter?

There are three key capabilities that distinguish a fifth generation fighter aircraft from a fourth generation:

Interoperability: a fifth generation aircraft provides a unique combination of stealth, long-range high-resolution sensors, and secure high-capacity networks that allow all F-35 aircraft to communicate with each other and share data in a secure environment;

Sensors/Data fusion: fifth generation incorporates a system that consolidates tactical information from the sensors and off-board sources to provide pilots with a clear understanding of the tactical situation at a glance;

Survivability: the survivability of a fifth generation aircraft is significantly increased by very low observable stealth, advanced sensors and secure data-link, which means a fifth generation aircraft can accomplish more in a mission with fewer supporting assets required.

A fourth generation aircraft cannot be upgraded to a fifth generation; the capabilities of a fifth generation aircraft, such as stealth technology, long-range high-resolution sensors, automated data fusion and secure high-capacity networks, must be built in.

A fifth generation fighter provides Canada with the highest probability of mission success, as well as the highest probability that the Canadian Forces pilot and aircraft will return home safely from the mission.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program and Canada's History of Participation

The F-35 has been developed by Lockheed Martin and partners through the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, a multinational effort to build and sustain an affordable, multi-role, next generation stealth fighter aircraft. Partners in the program include: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, and Australia. Purchasing the F-35 will ensure Canada remains interoperable with these major allies – including the US, our NORAD partner – well into the middle of this century.

JSF is the single largest fighter aircraft program in history. The total value of the program is expected to exceed US$383 billion, with production expected to top 5,000 aircraft; JSF partners are anticipated to acquire more than 3,000 aircraft, and export sales are estimated by Lockheed Martin at more than 2,000 aircraft. Based on these predictions, royalties from the export sales amounting to approximately $130 million will accrue to the Government of Canada's Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The JSF program is comprised of three distinct phases: the Concept Demonstration Phase (1997 – 2001) which involved two competing bidders developing prototype aircraft (Lockheed Martin was selected as the prime contractor); the System Development and Demonstration Phase (2001 – 2013), developing and testing the aircraft systems and components to be used; and finally, the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Phase (2007-2051), initiating production of the aircraft and sustaining parts for the serviceable life of the aircraft and follow-on development.

Canada has been a participant in the JSF program since 1997, when the Department of National Defence signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of US$10 million. As part of this phase, Canada participated in the extensive and rigorous U.S.-led competitive process where two bidders, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, developed and competed prototype aircraft. This process led to the selection of Lockheed Martin as the JSF manufacturer in 2001.

In 2002, Canada joined the System Development and Demonstration phase with a monetary investment of U.S.$100 million, with an additional U.S.$50 million contributed through federal Canadian technology investment programs. The System Development and Demonstration phase runs through 2015.

In 2003, the United States invited the current partners to participate in the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development phase of the program. In December 2006, Canada signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The cost for Canada to participate in this phase is approximately U.S.$551 million over the course of the 2007-2051 timeframe. This contribution will be used to cover Canada's portion of production, sustainment and follow-on development costs, including common tooling, sustainment, and follow-on development activities.

Acquiring a Next Generation Fighter Capability

In 2008, the Government of Canada announced its intent to replace the CF-18 fleet with a Next Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC). This was announced as a key commitment under the Canada First Defence Strategy.

In 2010, the Government of Canada exercised its options under the JSF program memorandum of understanding with the partner nations to acquire the F-35 to meet Canada's operational requirement, while providing the best value for Canada.

By acquiring a next generation fighter aircraft through the JSF program, Canada will see a significant reduction in the cost of acquisition and savings throughout the life-cycle of the aircraft, due to the collaborative approach to the sustainment and follow-on development.

The Government of Canada has committed approximately CAD$9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft and associated weapons, supporting infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs. This is funded through the Canada First Defence Strategy and the National Defence Investment Plan.

The majority of the expenditures will not be required until the 2015-2020 timeframe, when Canada will begin to take delivery of the aircraft. Canadian industry will begin to benefit immediately, providing a near-term boost to the Canadian aerospace and defence sector.

Sustained Economic Benefits for Canadian Industry

Canada's participation in the JSF program brings significant benefits to Canada. This program is delivering on the Canada First Defence Strategy's commitment to a renewed relationship with Canada's defence industry, leveraging Canada's competitive advantage and working with industry to help position Canadian companies for success in the global marketplace. With a long-term investment in this aircraft, Canada's defence industry has a rare and unique opportunity to be a part of the JSF global supply chain, advancing its technology, while bringing jobs and sustained economic benefits to regions across Canada.

In order to maximize industrial benefits and minimize costs, partner countries agreed to a best-value approach to industrial participation in the JSF program. In accordance with the JSF memorandum of understanding and in support of Canadian industry, Industry Canada has signed agreementswith Lockheed Martin and partners. These industrial participation agreements have provided unprecedented access to a significant multinational defence program for companies across Canada, including small and medium enterprises.

Participation in the JSF program has already provided Canadian industry with long-term, high technology industrial opportunities, such as advanced composite manufacturing, mission systems and high speed machining. To date, Canada has invested approximately CAD$168 million in the JSF program. Since 2002, the Government's participation in the JSF program has led to more than CAD$350 million in contracts for more than 85 Canadian companies, research laboratories, and universities-meaning that Canada has already seen a two-to-one return on its investment.

Now that Canada has committed to purchasing the F-35, Canadian industrial opportunities could exceed CAD$12 billion for the production of the aircraft. Sustainment and follow-on opportunities for Canadian industry are emerging and will be available over the 40-year life of the program. For instance, in accordance with the industrial participation agreements, all 19 Canadian companies manufacturing items for the F-35 will also repair and overhaul those components for the entire global fleet.

Conclusion

Not only does the F-35 meet all of the Canadian Forces operational requirements for a next generation fighter aircraft, the F-35 offers the best value by providing exceptional capability at the lowest cost with excellent benefits and opportunities for the Canadian defence industry. This acquisition will equip the Canadian Forces with the aircraft it needs to defend Canada's sovereignty and contribute to the defence of North America and international security.

- 30 -

For more information: 1-866-377-0811/613-996-2353
www.forces.gc.ca

For the news release, consult the National Defence newsroom at: www.forces.gc.ca

Still imagery will be available on the Canadian Forces Image Gallery at: www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca


Search for related information by keyword
National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces Military

Date modified: 2010-07-16