Prime Minister Stephen Harper is nothing if not cautious. But sometimes his catastrophe-avoidance reflex can backfire rather badly. Case in point? The F-35.
Does the Royal Canadian Air Force need serviceable fighter jets? Most Canadians would say so. The Conservative government shared that view once: A sole-sourced purchase of 65 new Lightning II stealth fighters, from U.S.-based Lockheed-Martin, formed a part of the Tory election platform in 2011. At the time, Conservatives argued that the “brave men and women in uniform,” deserved nothing but the best, that the F-35 fighter was indeed the best, and that the opposition were ninnies for questioning this.
But as we know, the benighted sole-source procurement, originally said to cost $9 billion, now $46 billion all-in, went supernova in late 2012, after projected costs ballooned. That led to a protracted period of shilly-shallying, during which lip service was paid to reforming defence procurement, when in fact time was being bought. An “options analysis,” was set in motion, which would determine a new path forward.
Industry players, among them Dassault (Rafale), Eurofighter (Typhoon), Boeing (Super Hornet) and Saab (Gripen), waited expectantly for this to unfold. They watched. They listened. And waited … and waited.
Two years later, the options analysis is complete. Its findings may be the least surprising news to hit Ottawa since it emerged the Senate has been comprised of some individuals not entirely consumed by a desire to save money for taxpayers.
For one thing, as anyone who has ever bothered to dig just a wee bit past Lockheed-Martin’s branding can attest, the F-35’s vaunted “fifth-generation” stealth capability does after all translate into its being a super-plane, on the order of an X-wing fighter out of Star Wars, with the added feature of a Klingon cloak of invisibility out of Star Trek. And forgive me for mixing universes.
Rather, it is an advanced multi-role fighter with some stealth capability, which is quickly being eroded by global technological advances in radar, and in this respect is not all that unlike the aircraft that are its two main competitors, the Super Hornet and the Rafale. The difference between the players as regards stealth, contrary to much nonsense that has emanated from F-35 boosters over the years, is one of degree, not of kind.
Where does this leave the government of Canada? Back where at the starting gate, it would appear, facing the prospect of either a sole-source purchase, or a competition, or some combination of the two. The RCAF is known to still covet the F-35, presumably because membership in that club is thought to confer perfect interoperability with the U.S. military, tactically and also from the point of view of the global defence data net to be cast by Lockheed. It has been speculated in defence circles that the ultimate solution would be Solomonic, or so the proponents of this plan would like to think; a small purchase of F-35s to buy a seat at the Pentagon table, and a larger acquisition of less costly, more workaday craft to do the jobs that form the backbone of the RCAF’s functions.
But let’s face it: Such a plan would be madness, from a practical standpoint. There is no way in which a country such as Canada, with a minuscule standing air force, can justify operating two distinct fighter fleets, requiring two support and maintenance programs, two pilot training systems … two of everything.
What makes sense for Canada is what has always made sense: First, to acknowledge that this country requires air defences, and must pay billions to acquire them, just as every other major country does; second, to hold an open competition, defined by a publicly known and debated statement of requirements, then select a contractor, and then buy the damned planes.
Given the existing fleet of 1980s-era F-18As is now to be extended through 2025, at a cost of $400 million, and given the options analysis has indicated no clear preference among any of the likely candidates, that is certainly possible now. There is no credible excuse remaining, if ever there was one, for avoiding an international competition.
The political reality though, is that there also is no longer any pressing need for the Harper government to deal with this now, while there are plenty of reasons for it not to, chief among them the looming election. The F-35 story was a fire, and it burned out of control, and hurt the government badly for a time. The PM is as likely to go back to it as a cat would be to leap back onto a hot tin roof.
And that’s another disaster survived for him, perhaps, except for this: Canada does require a new air force. He promised the country a renewed, properly equipped, capable military, lo those many years ago, in 2005-06. Old planes are not new planes. And no amount of shifting blame, or dodging or weaving, can obscure that this was simply bungled, almost beyond repair. It is ineptitude, piled upon ineptitude, and bureaucracy, and inertia, driving a lack of progress.
These are not, we are told, what the Harper government is supposed to be about. These are not great feats to be defended at election time.
Original Article
Source: canada.com/
Author: MICHAEL DEN TANDT
Does the Royal Canadian Air Force need serviceable fighter jets? Most Canadians would say so. The Conservative government shared that view once: A sole-sourced purchase of 65 new Lightning II stealth fighters, from U.S.-based Lockheed-Martin, formed a part of the Tory election platform in 2011. At the time, Conservatives argued that the “brave men and women in uniform,” deserved nothing but the best, that the F-35 fighter was indeed the best, and that the opposition were ninnies for questioning this.
But as we know, the benighted sole-source procurement, originally said to cost $9 billion, now $46 billion all-in, went supernova in late 2012, after projected costs ballooned. That led to a protracted period of shilly-shallying, during which lip service was paid to reforming defence procurement, when in fact time was being bought. An “options analysis,” was set in motion, which would determine a new path forward.
Industry players, among them Dassault (Rafale), Eurofighter (Typhoon), Boeing (Super Hornet) and Saab (Gripen), waited expectantly for this to unfold. They watched. They listened. And waited … and waited.
Two years later, the options analysis is complete. Its findings may be the least surprising news to hit Ottawa since it emerged the Senate has been comprised of some individuals not entirely consumed by a desire to save money for taxpayers.
For one thing, as anyone who has ever bothered to dig just a wee bit past Lockheed-Martin’s branding can attest, the F-35’s vaunted “fifth-generation” stealth capability does after all translate into its being a super-plane, on the order of an X-wing fighter out of Star Wars, with the added feature of a Klingon cloak of invisibility out of Star Trek. And forgive me for mixing universes.
Rather, it is an advanced multi-role fighter with some stealth capability, which is quickly being eroded by global technological advances in radar, and in this respect is not all that unlike the aircraft that are its two main competitors, the Super Hornet and the Rafale. The difference between the players as regards stealth, contrary to much nonsense that has emanated from F-35 boosters over the years, is one of degree, not of kind.
Where does this leave the government of Canada? Back where at the starting gate, it would appear, facing the prospect of either a sole-source purchase, or a competition, or some combination of the two. The RCAF is known to still covet the F-35, presumably because membership in that club is thought to confer perfect interoperability with the U.S. military, tactically and also from the point of view of the global defence data net to be cast by Lockheed. It has been speculated in defence circles that the ultimate solution would be Solomonic, or so the proponents of this plan would like to think; a small purchase of F-35s to buy a seat at the Pentagon table, and a larger acquisition of less costly, more workaday craft to do the jobs that form the backbone of the RCAF’s functions.
But let’s face it: Such a plan would be madness, from a practical standpoint. There is no way in which a country such as Canada, with a minuscule standing air force, can justify operating two distinct fighter fleets, requiring two support and maintenance programs, two pilot training systems … two of everything.
What makes sense for Canada is what has always made sense: First, to acknowledge that this country requires air defences, and must pay billions to acquire them, just as every other major country does; second, to hold an open competition, defined by a publicly known and debated statement of requirements, then select a contractor, and then buy the damned planes.
Given the existing fleet of 1980s-era F-18As is now to be extended through 2025, at a cost of $400 million, and given the options analysis has indicated no clear preference among any of the likely candidates, that is certainly possible now. There is no credible excuse remaining, if ever there was one, for avoiding an international competition.
The political reality though, is that there also is no longer any pressing need for the Harper government to deal with this now, while there are plenty of reasons for it not to, chief among them the looming election. The F-35 story was a fire, and it burned out of control, and hurt the government badly for a time. The PM is as likely to go back to it as a cat would be to leap back onto a hot tin roof.
And that’s another disaster survived for him, perhaps, except for this: Canada does require a new air force. He promised the country a renewed, properly equipped, capable military, lo those many years ago, in 2005-06. Old planes are not new planes. And no amount of shifting blame, or dodging or weaving, can obscure that this was simply bungled, almost beyond repair. It is ineptitude, piled upon ineptitude, and bureaucracy, and inertia, driving a lack of progress.
These are not, we are told, what the Harper government is supposed to be about. These are not great feats to be defended at election time.
Original Article
Source: canada.com/
Author: MICHAEL DEN TANDT
No comments:
Post a Comment