The identity of two fighter jets the Department of National Defence says it evaluated but overruled in favour of the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the aircraft to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornet fighter fleet remain a mystery.
But the aerospace firm that sold Canada the CF-18 fighters in 1980, and which has since awarded $5-billion worth of production and sustainment contracts in the country that were part of the deal, has informed The Hill Times National Defence did not even complete a high-level analysis of its fighter-jet contender for the same contract.
The Boeing aerospace company, which has sold more than 400 of its new-generation “Super Hornet” fighter jets to the U.S. Navy and the Australian Air Force since 2000, provided The Hill Times with a detailed explanation of how the company’s new F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft “has never been in any formal competition in Canada” as a contender against the trouble-plagued and costly F-35, even though the Boeing Super Hornet has been cited by experts as one of the top-of-the list potential successors to the CF-18 Hornet.
Former Canadian Forces colonel Paul Maillet, who was fleet manager of the CF-18s before he retired, recently criticized the government’s sole-source decision to buy 65 of the Lockheed Martin F-35s at an acquisition cost alone now forecast to be a minimum of $85-million per plane. He told reporters at a news conference on the Hill that he believes the two-engine F/A-18 Super Hornets would be more suited to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and defence requirements.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s highly critical April report on the government’s controversial decision to procure the single-engine F-35 to replace the CF-18 Hornets—set to be retired as early as 2020—included a summary of a final “options analysis” of “three contender aircraft” National Defence conducted in 2008 before it says it came to the decision that the F-35 was the “best value” for Canada.
A reference in Mr. Ferguson’s report to the competition—described as such even though National Defence and Public Works and Government Services, the contracting department, had to later rush through justification for a sole-source procurement of the F-35 prior to a cabinet decision in 2010—says the formal 2008 options analysis included the F-35, but the report does not identify the other two aircraft makers that were considered.
“This analysis concluded that, while all three aircraft could meet the high-level mandatory capabilities, the F-35 offered the ‘best value’ because it provided ‘exceptional capability at the lowest cost and unparalleled benefits for the Canadian aerospace industry,’” the auditor general quotes National Defence as saying during the F-35 acquisition audit.
“This analysis became pivotal to the decision-making process,” the report states. “The conclusions were presented to senior decision makers. There was no documentation supporting the analysis and conclusions.”
The government claimed in 2010, prior to the May 2 federal election, that the F-35 fleet would cost $9-billion in acquisition costs and a further $5.7-billion in sustainment over 20 years, but Mr. Ferguson revealed that National Defence and the government withheld a further $10.4-billion in operating and maintenance costs. Mr. Ferguson also said the government should have disclosed the total costs over the expected lifecycle for the aircraft—35 years.
National Defence deputy minister Rob Fonberg told a House Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the F-35 that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet made the decision not to publicly release the additional $10.4-billion in operating costs. U.S. Department of Defence estimates show the F-35 will cost $31,000 per flying hour for maintenance and other operating costs, compared to $19,000 for the CF-18 and similar current fighter jets.
The U.S. Congress recently approved a U.S. Navy purchase of F/A Super Hornets at an acquisition cost of $51-million per aircraft, nearly half the cost of the F-35s.
As of June 1, the Department of National Defence has not answered a Hill Times request to identify the other two competing aircraft or subsequent questions asking if the Super Hornet was one of the two aircraft aside from the F-35 that was assessed in the 2008 competition.
“Your query is still in the approvals process,” spokesperson Captain Shalako Smith told The Hill Times in an email on May 28, 10 days after the first request. “Should that situation change, I promise you I will provide you your response the moment I am able to do so.”
On June 1, Capt. Smith again said no response was ready for release, and added he had to pass on a reminder request to someone else in the media relations office because he was leaving the office temporarily for personal reasons.
“I apologize for not being available to help push on this for you here, but I promise I left your request with someone who is aware of your questions and the situation. If we are able to respond to your request, we will do so,” Capt. Smith said in that email.
Earlier, The Hill Times learned that the Privy Council Office was reviewing The Hill Times requests for information about the F-35 acquisition project prior to allowing National Defence to release any information. In several cases, it appeared the Privy Council Office was redacting or restricting responses, but National Defence failed upon request to confirm or deny that.
The Office of the Auditor General stated that it could not identify the two aircraft competing with the F-35s, initially saying because the information was not mentioned in the audit report, and later saying private-sector contractors were not included in the audit.
“We can’t answer any questions about the Super Hornet, as we can’t disclose any information outside our audit,” Ghislain Desjardins, media relations manager for the AG’s Office, said in an email.
Mary Ann Brett, senior manager of Boeing’s defence, space, and security division, told The Hill Times the Canadian government “has never released an actual set of requirements (the contending fighter jets would have to meet) directly to Boeing.”
“In October 2010, just before Boeing appeared before the House Committee on National Defence (in a public hearing), we received via the Canadian media a copy of a document entitled ‘High Level Mandatory Capabilities for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter,’” Ms. Brett said in an email.
“The Super Hornet meets all the requirements defined in that document,” she said.
“The Super Hornet has never been in any formal competition in Canada; there were limited preliminary discussions between the U.S. Navy, Boeing and the [Canadian National Defence] Next Generation Fighter (NGF) team in 2008 and early 2009 with an understanding that future discussions and data exchange would occur,” Ms. Brett said. “Neither of those took place; therefore, a full set of data on the Super Hornet was never provided to the NGF team by the US Navy for an options analysis.”
Ms. Brett explained in a subsequent email that Boeing can only provide “limited, unclassified, public release-type information to a potential customer, but anything above that needs to flow government-to-government, which includes USN [U.S. Navy].”
“We do not know why the discussions ended, then or now,” Ms. Brett said.
Another spokeswoman for Boeing, Peggy Mason, told The Hill Times that Boeing (which merged in 1996 with the CF-18’s manufacturer at the time of the 1980 sale to Canada, McDonnell Douglas) has completed $4.9-billion worth of commitments for contracts providing industrial and regional benefits to Canada that were part of the 1980 acquisition.
Boeing also has $5-billion worth of Canadian content value in industrial and regional benefits from its sale several years ago of four C-117 long-range transport and cargo jets to National Defence, and other air force procurement projects.
And, even though National Defence ignored Boeing as it was finalizing its analysis of contender aircraft against the F-35, the aerospace giant has direct contracts in Canada with two F/A-18 Super Hornet suppliers—Messier Dowty of Ajax, Ont., which manufacturers nose landing gears for the Super Hornet, and DRS Technologies of Carleton Place, Ont., near Ottawa, which manufactures deployable flight incident recorder sets for the Super Hornet, and also for the older CF-18 Hornets.
Three other Canadian aerospace firms continue to be contracted through the Canadian government to supply sustainment and maintenance services on the CF-18 Hornet.
No industrial and regional benefit guarantees are included with the planned contract to buy the F-35. National Defence said in the past that the purchases will guarantee Canadian aerospace firms the chance to bid on up to $12-billion worth of sustainment contracts for more than 3,000 F-35s expected to be sold to a consortium of nine countries, including Canada, and other countries outside the consortium. Industry Canada reduced that estimated to $9.8-billion in testimony at the Public Accounts committee. Those supply contracts, if they are awarded, would be over the lifetime of the F-35 fleets, estimated to be up to 50 years.
Opposition MPs said the Boeing experience with National Defence confirms senior officials and officers were determined, as early as 2006, that the F-35 would be the only aircraft National Defence would give serious consideration. Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of procurement at National Defence who argues for an open competition to replace the CF-18, has published documented evidence that National Defence made up its mind on the F-35 in 2006, and recommended it to then Defence minister Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.).
“We’re at the point where the search for the truth in what we’re told is so very difficult that it is easier, and a safer bet, to assume that we haven’t heard anything that’s true from the government yet,” NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) told The Hill Times. “In other words, the question seems to be, ‘How do you believe anything we’re told anymore?’”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
But the aerospace firm that sold Canada the CF-18 fighters in 1980, and which has since awarded $5-billion worth of production and sustainment contracts in the country that were part of the deal, has informed The Hill Times National Defence did not even complete a high-level analysis of its fighter-jet contender for the same contract.
The Boeing aerospace company, which has sold more than 400 of its new-generation “Super Hornet” fighter jets to the U.S. Navy and the Australian Air Force since 2000, provided The Hill Times with a detailed explanation of how the company’s new F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft “has never been in any formal competition in Canada” as a contender against the trouble-plagued and costly F-35, even though the Boeing Super Hornet has been cited by experts as one of the top-of-the list potential successors to the CF-18 Hornet.
Former Canadian Forces colonel Paul Maillet, who was fleet manager of the CF-18s before he retired, recently criticized the government’s sole-source decision to buy 65 of the Lockheed Martin F-35s at an acquisition cost alone now forecast to be a minimum of $85-million per plane. He told reporters at a news conference on the Hill that he believes the two-engine F/A-18 Super Hornets would be more suited to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and defence requirements.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s highly critical April report on the government’s controversial decision to procure the single-engine F-35 to replace the CF-18 Hornets—set to be retired as early as 2020—included a summary of a final “options analysis” of “three contender aircraft” National Defence conducted in 2008 before it says it came to the decision that the F-35 was the “best value” for Canada.
A reference in Mr. Ferguson’s report to the competition—described as such even though National Defence and Public Works and Government Services, the contracting department, had to later rush through justification for a sole-source procurement of the F-35 prior to a cabinet decision in 2010—says the formal 2008 options analysis included the F-35, but the report does not identify the other two aircraft makers that were considered.
“This analysis concluded that, while all three aircraft could meet the high-level mandatory capabilities, the F-35 offered the ‘best value’ because it provided ‘exceptional capability at the lowest cost and unparalleled benefits for the Canadian aerospace industry,’” the auditor general quotes National Defence as saying during the F-35 acquisition audit.
“This analysis became pivotal to the decision-making process,” the report states. “The conclusions were presented to senior decision makers. There was no documentation supporting the analysis and conclusions.”
The government claimed in 2010, prior to the May 2 federal election, that the F-35 fleet would cost $9-billion in acquisition costs and a further $5.7-billion in sustainment over 20 years, but Mr. Ferguson revealed that National Defence and the government withheld a further $10.4-billion in operating and maintenance costs. Mr. Ferguson also said the government should have disclosed the total costs over the expected lifecycle for the aircraft—35 years.
National Defence deputy minister Rob Fonberg told a House Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the F-35 that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet made the decision not to publicly release the additional $10.4-billion in operating costs. U.S. Department of Defence estimates show the F-35 will cost $31,000 per flying hour for maintenance and other operating costs, compared to $19,000 for the CF-18 and similar current fighter jets.
The U.S. Congress recently approved a U.S. Navy purchase of F/A Super Hornets at an acquisition cost of $51-million per aircraft, nearly half the cost of the F-35s.
As of June 1, the Department of National Defence has not answered a Hill Times request to identify the other two competing aircraft or subsequent questions asking if the Super Hornet was one of the two aircraft aside from the F-35 that was assessed in the 2008 competition.
“Your query is still in the approvals process,” spokesperson Captain Shalako Smith told The Hill Times in an email on May 28, 10 days after the first request. “Should that situation change, I promise you I will provide you your response the moment I am able to do so.”
On June 1, Capt. Smith again said no response was ready for release, and added he had to pass on a reminder request to someone else in the media relations office because he was leaving the office temporarily for personal reasons.
“I apologize for not being available to help push on this for you here, but I promise I left your request with someone who is aware of your questions and the situation. If we are able to respond to your request, we will do so,” Capt. Smith said in that email.
Earlier, The Hill Times learned that the Privy Council Office was reviewing The Hill Times requests for information about the F-35 acquisition project prior to allowing National Defence to release any information. In several cases, it appeared the Privy Council Office was redacting or restricting responses, but National Defence failed upon request to confirm or deny that.
The Office of the Auditor General stated that it could not identify the two aircraft competing with the F-35s, initially saying because the information was not mentioned in the audit report, and later saying private-sector contractors were not included in the audit.
“We can’t answer any questions about the Super Hornet, as we can’t disclose any information outside our audit,” Ghislain Desjardins, media relations manager for the AG’s Office, said in an email.
Mary Ann Brett, senior manager of Boeing’s defence, space, and security division, told The Hill Times the Canadian government “has never released an actual set of requirements (the contending fighter jets would have to meet) directly to Boeing.”
“In October 2010, just before Boeing appeared before the House Committee on National Defence (in a public hearing), we received via the Canadian media a copy of a document entitled ‘High Level Mandatory Capabilities for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter,’” Ms. Brett said in an email.
“The Super Hornet meets all the requirements defined in that document,” she said.
“The Super Hornet has never been in any formal competition in Canada; there were limited preliminary discussions between the U.S. Navy, Boeing and the [Canadian National Defence] Next Generation Fighter (NGF) team in 2008 and early 2009 with an understanding that future discussions and data exchange would occur,” Ms. Brett said. “Neither of those took place; therefore, a full set of data on the Super Hornet was never provided to the NGF team by the US Navy for an options analysis.”
Ms. Brett explained in a subsequent email that Boeing can only provide “limited, unclassified, public release-type information to a potential customer, but anything above that needs to flow government-to-government, which includes USN [U.S. Navy].”
“We do not know why the discussions ended, then or now,” Ms. Brett said.
Another spokeswoman for Boeing, Peggy Mason, told The Hill Times that Boeing (which merged in 1996 with the CF-18’s manufacturer at the time of the 1980 sale to Canada, McDonnell Douglas) has completed $4.9-billion worth of commitments for contracts providing industrial and regional benefits to Canada that were part of the 1980 acquisition.
Boeing also has $5-billion worth of Canadian content value in industrial and regional benefits from its sale several years ago of four C-117 long-range transport and cargo jets to National Defence, and other air force procurement projects.
And, even though National Defence ignored Boeing as it was finalizing its analysis of contender aircraft against the F-35, the aerospace giant has direct contracts in Canada with two F/A-18 Super Hornet suppliers—Messier Dowty of Ajax, Ont., which manufacturers nose landing gears for the Super Hornet, and DRS Technologies of Carleton Place, Ont., near Ottawa, which manufactures deployable flight incident recorder sets for the Super Hornet, and also for the older CF-18 Hornets.
Three other Canadian aerospace firms continue to be contracted through the Canadian government to supply sustainment and maintenance services on the CF-18 Hornet.
No industrial and regional benefit guarantees are included with the planned contract to buy the F-35. National Defence said in the past that the purchases will guarantee Canadian aerospace firms the chance to bid on up to $12-billion worth of sustainment contracts for more than 3,000 F-35s expected to be sold to a consortium of nine countries, including Canada, and other countries outside the consortium. Industry Canada reduced that estimated to $9.8-billion in testimony at the Public Accounts committee. Those supply contracts, if they are awarded, would be over the lifetime of the F-35 fleets, estimated to be up to 50 years.
Opposition MPs said the Boeing experience with National Defence confirms senior officials and officers were determined, as early as 2006, that the F-35 would be the only aircraft National Defence would give serious consideration. Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of procurement at National Defence who argues for an open competition to replace the CF-18, has published documented evidence that National Defence made up its mind on the F-35 in 2006, and recommended it to then Defence minister Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.).
“We’re at the point where the search for the truth in what we’re told is so very difficult that it is easier, and a safer bet, to assume that we haven’t heard anything that’s true from the government yet,” NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) told The Hill Times. “In other words, the question seems to be, ‘How do you believe anything we’re told anymore?’”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment