E.R. Campbell said:
CF-18 Life Extension?
This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from
iPolitics:
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/14/expert-panel-asks-military-how-extended-life-cf-18-might-stack-up-against-new-options/
The PWGSC report on 10 Jan 13 discussions of the
Independent Review Panel's Evaluation of Options is
here. The panel members are listed, with bios,
here.
In the wake of the shipbuilding plan, Prime Minister Harper seems to have more faith in independent panels than he does in line department civil servants and military officers.
I'm liking where this might be heading.
Panel is asked by the Government to compare the F-35 to other available aircraft.
Panel convenes and asks vendors to supply info for the comparison
RCAF pipes up and says it already has a comparison completed. Panel is welcome to verify work.
Panel asks RCAF how CF-188 stacks up against its own comparison standards.
RCAF says it will get back to the panel.
When that work (adding the CF-188) to the comparison sheet is completed the Government and the Public will have a firm basis of comparison - a standard - a benchmark if you will - against which the contenders can be compared.
The RCAF and DND will end up looking fairly rational in their decision making.
At the same time there is an issue to be addressed.
A few months ago I asked the DND for records under the ATIF on the cost of operating the CF-188s, the bases they operate from and the tankers that fuel them. They came back with a proposal for a $500 search and would only be able to supply some of the records going back some of the time. At about the same time the KPMG report came out so I declined to send them my $500. My curiousity isn't that great.
Now, I don't think my question was unreasonable. I believe that in an organisation that is promoting life-cycle planning (not life-cycle budgeting or life-cycle purchasing but life-cycle planning) it might be possible that an entity replacing an existing fleet with a new fleet might have engaged in some data-mining to determine its current costs and capabilities. I was anticipating that my request might evince the response of an existing report. Instead I was to be offered many sheets of data from many sources and that data incomplete.
Perhaps the problem with this whole issue can be traced back to accounting practices. It has become common knowledge that the cost of providing air cover to Canada is equivalent to providing a national broadcast service to Canada. Perhaps it would be useful if the budget for that air cover capabilty were tracked as an entity rather than as a series of isolated but interconnected purchases.
If that capability budget had been available from the get go then the ever-expanding F35 budget fiasco (6 to 9 to 16 to 25 to 42 BCAD) need never have happened. It would have been clear from the outset that the cost was 1 BCAD per year regardless of whether F35s or CF-188s or Rafales were being used.
