Both Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay have stated that the F-35 procurement process actually began 15 years ago. This is false. What began 15 years ago was a partnership of several countries interested in vying for industrial contracts associated with the development of the F-35. There was no undertaking, official or implicit, that Canada would procure this aircraft.
The week before last, the Auditor-General released his report on the government's management of the procurement process to replace the CF-18. He dwelt on the fact that the process was opaque, that key steps were performed out of sequence, that $10-billion had disappeared from government costing and that the process was driven from 2006 onward toward one outcome only: the selection of the F-35.
Deeply troubling is the fact that the Harper government does not accept any responsibility for this fiasco, nor does it believe that it is accountable in any way. There is no other word for this but hypocrisy.
I would like to reiterate what I wrote in this newspaper almost two years ago, shortly after Peter MacKay announced that the F-35 would be the sole source choice to replace the CF-18. At the time I argued that the procurement process required an open competition based on a clearly stated set of requirements. This has never happened.
At the very top of the military procurement process is the definition of the mission capabilities required of the replacement fighter, based on Canada's defence and foreign policy objectives. In other words, how will this aircraft be used during its expected lifetime to serve Canada's specific needs?
It goes without saying that the most important mission of the aircraft is the defence of our territorial sovereignty. This is likely to be its principal mission for 98% of its lifetime. It's important to define the primacy of this mission since it must be a major driver for the technical requirements of the chosen aircraft. For example, it would place greater weight on an aircraft with two engines, all other things being equal. It would also favour a certain level of stealth capability but less than for other types of missions.
The sovereignty mission capability is very similar to the mission capabilities we must also possess as a partner in NORAD (North American Air Defence). The requirement here is, once again, the defence of our territory and this implies the requirement to be operationally compatible with our southern neighbour.
Other missions to consider will depend on the roles we accept as part of our military alliances, e.g. as a member of NATO. What mission capabilities do we require if we decide to project our air power overseas? Do we require an aircraft that is capable of deep-strike first-attack capability against a very well defended adversary? Or do we focus on other air support missions? Again the answer is important since it implies a specific technical capability (e.g., good stealth capability). On the other hand, do we decide that we will accept secondary air support roles in such a scenario and only take on the deep-strike role against a less well-defended adversary or one which has been softened up by cruise missile or unmanned drone deployments?
Answering these questions is important since it is impossible for Canada to find a single aircraft which is optimal for all possible types of missions.
Unlike some of our allies, we don't have an arsenal of different aircraft or unmanned weapons from which to choose. Although it is an option for us to have more than one aircraft to cover different missions, there is also a price to pay in terms of infrastructure duplication.
To this day, Canadians have not been shown a clearly stated set of requirements for the CF-18 replacement. Instead, they have been told that Canada needs the only "fifth-generation" aircraft available - a requirement which, as the Auditor-General points out, is not an operational one.
The government has failed to tell us what mission capabilities it expects from the CF-18 replacement. It has failed to hold on open competition in order to select the best aircraft possible based on performance, cost, availability and industrial benefits.
Finally, it has failed to accept any accountability whatsoever.
Marc Garneau is the Liberal MP for the riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie in Montreal.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Marc Garneau
The week before last, the Auditor-General released his report on the government's management of the procurement process to replace the CF-18. He dwelt on the fact that the process was opaque, that key steps were performed out of sequence, that $10-billion had disappeared from government costing and that the process was driven from 2006 onward toward one outcome only: the selection of the F-35.
Deeply troubling is the fact that the Harper government does not accept any responsibility for this fiasco, nor does it believe that it is accountable in any way. There is no other word for this but hypocrisy.
I would like to reiterate what I wrote in this newspaper almost two years ago, shortly after Peter MacKay announced that the F-35 would be the sole source choice to replace the CF-18. At the time I argued that the procurement process required an open competition based on a clearly stated set of requirements. This has never happened.
At the very top of the military procurement process is the definition of the mission capabilities required of the replacement fighter, based on Canada's defence and foreign policy objectives. In other words, how will this aircraft be used during its expected lifetime to serve Canada's specific needs?
It goes without saying that the most important mission of the aircraft is the defence of our territorial sovereignty. This is likely to be its principal mission for 98% of its lifetime. It's important to define the primacy of this mission since it must be a major driver for the technical requirements of the chosen aircraft. For example, it would place greater weight on an aircraft with two engines, all other things being equal. It would also favour a certain level of stealth capability but less than for other types of missions.
The sovereignty mission capability is very similar to the mission capabilities we must also possess as a partner in NORAD (North American Air Defence). The requirement here is, once again, the defence of our territory and this implies the requirement to be operationally compatible with our southern neighbour.
Other missions to consider will depend on the roles we accept as part of our military alliances, e.g. as a member of NATO. What mission capabilities do we require if we decide to project our air power overseas? Do we require an aircraft that is capable of deep-strike first-attack capability against a very well defended adversary? Or do we focus on other air support missions? Again the answer is important since it implies a specific technical capability (e.g., good stealth capability). On the other hand, do we decide that we will accept secondary air support roles in such a scenario and only take on the deep-strike role against a less well-defended adversary or one which has been softened up by cruise missile or unmanned drone deployments?
Answering these questions is important since it is impossible for Canada to find a single aircraft which is optimal for all possible types of missions.
Unlike some of our allies, we don't have an arsenal of different aircraft or unmanned weapons from which to choose. Although it is an option for us to have more than one aircraft to cover different missions, there is also a price to pay in terms of infrastructure duplication.
To this day, Canadians have not been shown a clearly stated set of requirements for the CF-18 replacement. Instead, they have been told that Canada needs the only "fifth-generation" aircraft available - a requirement which, as the Auditor-General points out, is not an operational one.
The government has failed to tell us what mission capabilities it expects from the CF-18 replacement. It has failed to hold on open competition in order to select the best aircraft possible based on performance, cost, availability and industrial benefits.
Finally, it has failed to accept any accountability whatsoever.
Marc Garneau is the Liberal MP for the riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie in Montreal.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Marc Garneau
No comments:
Post a Comment