While I agree 100%, I think you ignore the key role the media played in all this. The Conservatives lost their nerve when the PBO announced that the F-35 would cost not $9B but $150B (over their 50 year life), leading to a media and public outcry.
Instead of the obvious answer, which is that any air force at all would cost essentially the same regardless of aircraft type, the media pretended, and allowed the Liberals to pretend, that this cost was specific to the F-35. And that costing over 50 years made sense.
How was it possible that any journalist even slightly interested in truthful, objective reporting fell for this? Or is it the case that only a tiny minority of Canadian journalists are even slightly interested in truthful, objective reporting?
This is a far more serious issue for Canada than our government's undoubted incompetence and lack of seriousness in military procurement and, frankly, everything else they do.
Look, journalists are like any other profession. They only have so much time. If you're a government with a story to tell, you need to communicate it clearly and make it as easy as possible for journalists to tell your side of the story.
The other end of this is good journalism costs money and we're in a transition period where a lot of traditional news is cutting way, way back. A couple of owners own most of the newspapers in Canada; in some places you may only be reading a PostMedia paper, for example, even if you are getting your news via a local paper, a Sun paper and the National Post.
But, fundemental to the problem IMO is that news outlets focus on what they think their audience is interested in. And, we have become a seriously unserious people (unfortunately). A lot of political reporting in Canada is either "horse race" stories (who is going to win an election? Who is winning in the polls?) or "outrage stories" (who said an incredibly dumb thing they now need to walk back? What agency spent an amount of money unimaginable to most people?). The reality is often way more nuanced than that -- and is available if you dig a little. But, what's clear is that most people aren't really interested in the nuance.
Underneath all of that, I think we've moved from thinking of ourselves as citizens to thinking of ourselves as 'consumers of government stuff'. The first is concerned with sustaining this collective project we call Canada. Sure, we'll all have differing visions of what will work or won't work. But, its grounded in a common desire to see the country flourish.
The second is rooted in "what's in this for me?". It loves the fantasy that governments can provide you with lots of services and be 'efficient' enough that it won't cost you more in taxes. And, its relatively uninterested in policy issues that don't do anything directly for you. Shared concerns (say, Canada's lackluster productivity growth, the state of our military) tend to get the short end of the stick because doing something will costs $$$ with no direct, immediate benefit.
I think we've become mostly the second. We're unfortunately a seriously unserious country when it comes to public policy and increasingly our politicians and media reflect that. But, I have a hard time imagining politicians and media changing unless we collectively change. It's why I subscribed to The Line -- and maybe the Substack model might help foster a more serious, broader discussion. I'm skeptical, but we'll see.
Thinking for 2 minutes or applying basic common sense isn't asking too much of a journalist. But I agree that Canadians should demand that even if the journalist is "on our side".
"I didn't have time to design the bridge properly" doesn't work for engineers, btw - so not all professions are the same.
I do think a lot of Canadians also seem to have a hard time discerning between opinion, analysis and reporting. Reporting is costly, especially in-depth reporting, so we're seeing a lot less of it. And, local reporting is one of the first to go, which is really damaging for local governance -- where a LOT of the things we actually engage with happen. Reporting is the lifeblood of democracy -- its hard to make good judgements about policy without knowing what's actually going on.
But as reporting costs a lot -- and the media industry looks to fill pages and minutes with less cost -- we now have a LOT of opionion and analysis, in part because both are cheaper to produce. I don't have anything against that -- a lot of The Line is opinion and analysis, after all. But, a lot of the folks producing this content also are engaged with other parts of party politics. They're former government communications professionals. They write for specific think tanks. They lobby for interest groups. In part, it is those activities that make their opinion and analysis interesting, but the industry is not always entirely transparent about declaring those other connections which are very relevant to their work. Particuarly when those folks give quotes as part of reporting (as reporters seeks to find sound bites from various sides -- and these folks are *always* available).
I'd love to see more money go to reporting but the funding model is broken and we probably need a new one. I'd also love to see people writing opinion and analysis more clearly declare where they are coming from -- every single time they are quoted or have pieces appear in media. I think both would really help people regain trust for media.
For example: "Bob Smith, former Clark government communications director and currently an active lobbyist for the agricultural industry" is a lot more transparent that "Bob Smith, lead at Smith Consultants and an expert in the agricultural sector," Longer and clunkier, sure. But more transparent!
Tony, well said and I agree with most of what you said. The only bone I have to pick is when you say "A lot of political reporting in Canada is either "horse race" stories (who is going to win an election? Who is winning in the polls?) or "outrage stories" (who said an incredibly dumb thing they now need to walk back? What agency spent an amount of money unimaginable to most people?). " I only wish it was that objective. I think each of those situations you discuss are manipulated into existing narratives held either by the authour or her employer.
That's what I recall too. Harper and McKay WANTED to proceed, but the Auditor General report (and the spin of the LPC of that report which was parroted dutifully by the MSM) turned it into a third rail for him. He was legitimately faced with the likelihood that proceeding with the F-35s would cost him the next election. Elections are decided by 1-2% margins. The LPC made this look like the F-35 was an irresponsible choice and the media didn't ONCE point out that the lifecycle costing was different than the acquisition price.
That was the AG report where we decided to calculate the full lifetime costs of anything having to do with the aircraft and rolled that into the already eye-watering price tag just to purchase them. "Twenty years from now you'll have to book some hotel rooms for some pilots, better make sure that cost is reflected in the report."
It was odd for the PBO to use the future complete lifecycle cost to discredit the F-35, but not to use the same methodology when costing other government initiatives. The federal government shouldn't hire any more employees because the future lifecycle cost of doing so is in the $4-5M range per civil servant.
It would appear the F35 has about double the hourly operating cost of an F18. All planes are not created equal. It also has a completely different electrical system that is not compatible with our current equipment increasing the acquisition costs further.
It is kind of like dragging your feet so long for updates on your computer that by the time you decided to come around and update you do not have the drivers or resources available on your system to sustain it. Had you updated periodically along the way, you would have investing piecemeal in upgrades no less and never would have had the problem. Part of our issue is this belief in Ottawa that we can just buy it and forget about it for 20-30 years. It has plagued our ships, our aircraft and our combat vehicles for long enough me thinks.
That was true in 2016, but the cost per flying hour has been trending down since then. It's still more expensive than it should be, though - probably more like 1.5x the cost of contemporary fighters, although there seems to be a plan to get it down to parity. Some of this is an expected part of fielding a new aircraft, as it takes time to understand how to optimize the maintenance. It's also an advantage of buying something used in large numbers, as you spread out the effort of figuring it out and share the lessons learned between operators.
Before they kicked Boeing out of the contest, the newer F18's were part of the process, based on the timing of the article, I'm assuming...I know..assumption...kill me now!!...that they're talking about the Super Hornet operating costs. The question still comes back to the unanswered "what do we expect to use them for"?
Reminds me of when Harper was debating purchasing the F35s and people were poo-pooing them because they didn't have twin engines like the F18s. First, engine technology has improved to the point that we do not need dual engines anymore, regardless of how many engine failures and forced landings there has been with the F18s over their lifetime, there will not be the same problem with the F35s. Also, dual engines are good for safety and redundancy but terrible for logistics and procurement. It means more equipment to service, more parts to source, etc. So the F35 has a huge leg up over the F18s in only have a single engine that is way more reliable than anything we used in aircraft up to this point. The comparisons are pretty weak.
The mishap rate for the F-35 has been very low so far, particularly when compared with previous-generation fighters at a similar point in their lifecycle. For all F-35s, it's something like 0.15 Class A mishaps per 100,000 h of flying time. A Class A mishap is an incident that costs more than $2 million to fix, usually meaning loss of the aircraft.
In terms of the effect of single vs. dual engine aircraft, we can also take a look at engine-related Class A mishap rates from USAF data. Let's compare the single-engine F-16 to the twin-engine F-15, and look at the mishap rates only for aircraft powered by the same P&W F100-220 engine. The F-15 engine-related mishap rate is 0.19, vs. 0.96 for the F-16. Clearly a second engine has a significant impact on whether you're going to lose an aircraft or not. However, the F-35 is going to have a lifetime of about 10,000 h. Let's assume that the failure rate is *comparable* to the F-15/F-16 data I've referenced with older engine technology: for the Canadian fleet, this is the difference between losing 2 aircraft due to engine problems over 30 years vs. 8 aircraft. Based on the Class A rate of the overall F-35 fleet to date, we're talking about the difference between losing 1-2 aircraft over 30 years and 0-1. In other words, all of those operating cost considerations are probably more relevant than the benefit of that 2nd engine.
If it's like the CF18's we'd better plan for a 20000 hour lifespan :) I recall airshows of the 80's and 90's when they demonstrated the 9G turn. Now it's down to 7.
My biggest fear for losing airplanes involves birds. I don't think the F35 has been pushed yet to full service pressures unlike the other 2. It's still evolving
Actually the Australia comparison is super apt. Canada and Australia have a lot in common socially, politically and economically. The Australians have done wonders to revamp and turn their military around because of threats existing around them. They are building a truly effective submarine fleet and lead even NATO countries (even though they are not part of NATO) in mine warfare capabilities. I think there is something we can actually learn from them.
Part of the stupidity was that the various cost numbers tossed around weren't even necessarily at odds with each other; they just reflected different ways of stating the cost. It was to the advantage of opposition critics to pick the number that looked worst, and the reporters rarely bothered to explain the difference to their audience. Then they'd start comparing something like the flyaway cost of one aircraft to the total life cycle cost of another aircraft, which was like comparing the purchase price of a car bought in 1982 to the cost of a 2010 model, only insisting that the 2010 price also had to consider the full cost of maintenance and gas over the lifetime of the car and ignoring the same factors for the 1982 car.
Yes, you need stealth in a modern fighter aircraft. First, modern surface-to-air missiles like the Russian "double-digit" SAMs used in Ukraine have been proven to dramatically reduce the survivability of conventional aircraft. That writing was on the wall back in the early '80s, which is why the US started developing stealth aircraft in the first place. Ironically, the Russians have discovered how lethal their own systems are when trying to use their non-stealthy aircraft against those systems when used by Ukraine.
Second, stealth is a critical advantage when you're facing other aircraft. Modern air to air missiles are far more deadly than the technology used even during the late Cold War. The first pilot to see their opponent and take a shot likely wins, and it's a lot harder to detect a stealth aircraft. As maneuverable as some modern aircraft are, they're still less maneuverable than the missiles aimed at them.
I think I brought it up in another thread here, but I kind of figure the US will be involved in anything we are. That means they will establish air superiority and will have done so much damage with their stealth fleet in the first 72 hours, that no one on the ground will dare turn their radars on.
If you think about it, if you took the pilot out of the F35 and flew it as a drone, it can turn at a much higher rate. Humans are holding the airframe back.
It all goes back to what we intend to use them for. A fun debate
Sure, but it's a question of materiality. If the discussion had been $150B over 50 years for the F-35 vs, say, $130 for the Gripen, that would be reasonable. But that's not how it went.
We've made our CF18's last 40 years, and they're 20 out of date...and lifespan. We shouldn't expect these to last 50 years. Same problem. Airframes will be long expired.
Excellent point Marc. Re PBO report, I recall that it used parametric analysis to estimate the full life cycle cost. This time of analysis is typically used to estimate things like the amount of concrete needed to build a 10 story building. It is a broad tool, and hardly applicable to this century fighter jets. The Auditor General report was just as bad, a swan song for the outgoing AG. And you are right, the media was served up a softball and hit it out of the park: far easier to precipitate a pointless political fight than to ask simple questions like: what the hell is parametric analysis. The f35 was always the the next gen fighter jet for Canada if capability and interoperability are the key selection criteria.
Oh, would this sensibility extend to our equally needed (and equally appalling procurement history) frigate replacement. Here is a suggestion: just buy 4 Arleigh Burkes (with sufficient C2 capability) and 15 extant frigates from the US (our most important military partner). Do not/not open the process to anything other than strictly limited and strictly monitored capability upspend by the military. Time to rip the band aid off. The shipbuilding strategy has not worked.
I recall being told by a Forces member after September 11, that the RCAF had a commitment of 45 aircraft for NORAD and 45 for NATO. The decision of the Chretien government was to make sure we had 45 total available, as "what are the odds we'll need both at the same time". Rick Mercer would and probably has had, a field day with this.
Welcome back (I know you co-wrote other stuff while you were on vacation.) What a country. We should have an award show on CBC (poetic justice) each year to recognize incompetence. “The award for most innovative screw-up goes to …” “This year’s worst federal Cabinet Minister is …”
Are the new helicopters even on the ships yet? I remember nothing but problems during the roll out including the span of the aircraft itself being too wide for our hangers.
The SeaThings were probably one of the best designed maritime aircrafts available to the world. I think that is what has made the replaced difficult as well. It is hard to replace the Cady, even if it is old, when all that is available is Jettas.
The Sea King was good in its day, but plenty of countries have found ways to replace it. The RN Merlin and Super Lynx are no Jetta, nor is the USN's Sea Hawk. It's not all that hard if you have the will to do it and I think that's Gurney's entire point when it comes to Canadian military procurement.
I do not think any of those aircraft will see the service life and combat time that the Sea Kings did over their lifetime. The Merlin and Super Lynx are great aircraft, no doubt but the Sea King was and still is something else. It is just very, very old now and made worse in Canada because of the fact we shut down assembly lines for parts. The Sea Hawk is good too but too large for our ships in Canada and perhaps a little more combat oriented. We used our Sea Kings for SAR and anti-submarine operations which wouldn't require a super large payload like say for Hellfire missiles.
"When you write a lot about military procurement, as I certainly have, you can’t help but grow a bit (!) jaded and cynical. Even by the standards of my appallingly lowered expectations, though, this was an outrageous decision." Now try being the person who is actually using the equipment, getting into the plane, the ship the tank...it's scary.
Sadly, I am not sufficiently informed to make an intelligent comment on the substance of the argument, but I LOVE the writing: witty and wonderful. Thanks for a great read.
There are no excuses for the kind of journalism we have today. None. If they can not write facts, you don’t make them up to get people to read your work. Many older and famed journalists are deeply concerned where this garbage journalism is headed. It’s no wonder it’s on its way out. When Christia Freeland calls the publication and writer, saying she does not like the way the truth is written and wants it changed, then we do not call Canada a free and democratic country with a free press, and we certainly do not call that journalism. When the government allows Chinese newspapers in the press gallery but will not allow Canadian ones in because they call them out for the corruption, then this is no longer a free and democratic country, even the judge ruled on that, nor can you call it journalism. You may call it by any other name but it is not, nor will ever be journalism! Save yourself and do what The Line is doing. Do what Bari Weiss, Trish Wood, Matt Taibei, True North, Rupa Subramanya and real journalists do. It’s a craft and it is about truth. It’s holding those with power accountable for their actions, not aiding them in tyranny
If our WW2 and Korean war vets could see what we've become militarily, they would weep. What was all their sacrifice for? To see our country run by a prancing idiot? I've come to equate three words with one: "Liberal decision making" and "stupid". And partly for that reason I question the choice of the F35. I know the F35 is a marvelous airplane, but I feel the Saab Gripen would have been a much better fit for Canada's budget and needs. I see the F35 as an elegant sleek thoroughbred, chosen to compete in a steeplechase through rough bush country. In a dogfight with Russian fighters, it will happen over the Arctic, not conveniently near Edmonton or Montreal where paved runways and nice big hangers are available for maintenance.
As with all these things, it would be interesting to know who will spend more in Canada filling the order, as I see that as a significant issue.
That said, I think everyone agrees that this order is at least a decade late in coming.
One thing to consider in the "which aircraft" debate, is interoperability. Everywhere we go with the F35, other countries will be there and parts and spares should be widely available. If we get Gripens, we'd have to bring all our own stuff. Additionally, from speaking to people in the pilot community, one of the big bonuses of the F35 is that the aircraft "talk" to each other passing on threat and other information that is then presented to the pilot.
While I think the F35 is something of a Cadillac, and more than we need ( I believe whatever we're involved in, the US will establish air superiority very very quickly with their array of stealthy equipment), and we could have played a supporting role with Super Hornets with which our techs already have some familiarity. Alas, neither the Chief of Defence staff or the Minister of Defence have called to ask my opinion. I'll update if that happens :)
I think regardless of what we get, an increase in air tanker capacity is also required for Arctic sovereignty.
I assume it's this article. Wow.....1 minute of supersonic flight. Sounds similar to the B2 which has to be recoated after every flight for well over $100000. Lucky they don't dogfight at that speed....but Maverick won't get there in time ( in honour of Top Gun 2 about to come out)
Isn't part of the problem with military procurement the obsession with delivering "industrial benefits" to swing ridings as opposed to fulfilling military requirements? Canada needs to accept the reality that it will never create competitive let alone competent aerospace or ship building industries, and focus on buying the best off the shelf solutions.
The bureaucracy seems intoxicated with the notion that they can extract industrial benefits that more than offset the cost of the aircraft. That was the crux of retired procurement official Alan Williams' widely-publicized criticism of a sole-source F-35 buy back in 2010. The thing is that the notion is complete nonsense. The manufacturers will certainly provide their customers with industrial offsets to complete the deal, but it's usually understood to be buying political cover. The offsets inevitably add cost to the purchase as the manufacturer has to incur additional cost to make them happen. Smithsonian Air & Space magazine had a great article about 20 years ago talking about the offsets accompanying a Finnish purchase of F-18s. One of the things I remember from the article was a McDonnell-Douglas manager searching for buyers for batches of Finnish painted wooden flowers that formed part of the offset!
Meanwhile, Canada's been paying into the F-35 development program since the late 1990s, giving Canadian companies the ability to bid on supply of F-35 components. They've done fairly well out of it already. One of the approaches of the F-35 was supposed to be that everybody buys into the program, and the program would try to control cost by simply buying the best component/subsystem from the best bidder without the usual politics messing things up. Canada's dithering on signing up for a buy was putting that at risk, though, as other partners were complaining about Canadian companies getting work when the government wasn't actually taking any aircraft.
So ... did anyone at the time the Liberal platform was released point out the gaff? ... or anytime afterwards, until you're now doing Matt?
This looks like Justin's possibly first "dumbass" mistake! But if it had been pointed out and publicized loudly, should that not have prevented them from breaking their collective necks all these years to hide the mistake?
CAF are still using World War II vintage Brownings. The problem is that no replacements are available. Even spare parts are unavailable, so we must cannibalize to weapons we have left.
Government called for tenders back in 2010. Unfortunately, bids had to meet two conditions (1) Manufacturing had to take place in a Canadian factory (Colt, as I recall) (2) any trade secrets had to be made available to the Canadian company. As a result, there were no significant offers. (Putting industrial strategy ahead of military effectiveness is a common thread in Canadian military procurement.)
Fast forward. A contract was finally awarded to Beretta. However, the structure of the call for offers was appealed by another bidder, Sig Sauer, who won in court earlier this year. The court said that the procurement process was fatally flawed and had to be redone. So the Canadian Armed Forces still don't have replacement sidearms, and won't for another year or five.
All of which goes a long way to explain why Canada is not giving weapons to Ukraine. We don't have any that we are not ashamed of.
Honest question here - and maybe I'm too biased on this one. The auditor general sort of killed Harper's deal by demanding a full lifecycle cost and making it look like the Feds had lied or vastly underestimated the cost of the jets. At the time, I saw that as having been the nail in the coffin of the F-35, and that up until then, Harper's government was moving forward.
While the Auditor General's report may not have been politically motivated, I felt that the hay made by the Libs on this file was very misleading. They gained very much by making it look like Harper was purposely hiding 20 billion or so in costs on the F-35 which made it impossible for him to proceed.
And that may be my bias, but that's had me blaming the LPC for Harper backing away from that deal. Am I off-base here?
Twenty years ago when my kids were little and I was reading the newspaper and watching the national news, all the while thinking I was a well-informed citizen keeping on top of important shit.
Well, dammit all. I had no clue. As did most other voters, apparently.
Yeah. These days I'm way more inclined to suspect editorial decisions at major news brokers. There is just too much pressure to feed viewers, listeners and readers the easiest, quickest, catchiest, risk-free stories.
While I agree 100%, I think you ignore the key role the media played in all this. The Conservatives lost their nerve when the PBO announced that the F-35 would cost not $9B but $150B (over their 50 year life), leading to a media and public outcry.
Instead of the obvious answer, which is that any air force at all would cost essentially the same regardless of aircraft type, the media pretended, and allowed the Liberals to pretend, that this cost was specific to the F-35. And that costing over 50 years made sense.
How was it possible that any journalist even slightly interested in truthful, objective reporting fell for this? Or is it the case that only a tiny minority of Canadian journalists are even slightly interested in truthful, objective reporting?
This is a far more serious issue for Canada than our government's undoubted incompetence and lack of seriousness in military procurement and, frankly, everything else they do.
Look, journalists are like any other profession. They only have so much time. If you're a government with a story to tell, you need to communicate it clearly and make it as easy as possible for journalists to tell your side of the story.
The other end of this is good journalism costs money and we're in a transition period where a lot of traditional news is cutting way, way back. A couple of owners own most of the newspapers in Canada; in some places you may only be reading a PostMedia paper, for example, even if you are getting your news via a local paper, a Sun paper and the National Post.
But, fundemental to the problem IMO is that news outlets focus on what they think their audience is interested in. And, we have become a seriously unserious people (unfortunately). A lot of political reporting in Canada is either "horse race" stories (who is going to win an election? Who is winning in the polls?) or "outrage stories" (who said an incredibly dumb thing they now need to walk back? What agency spent an amount of money unimaginable to most people?). The reality is often way more nuanced than that -- and is available if you dig a little. But, what's clear is that most people aren't really interested in the nuance.
Underneath all of that, I think we've moved from thinking of ourselves as citizens to thinking of ourselves as 'consumers of government stuff'. The first is concerned with sustaining this collective project we call Canada. Sure, we'll all have differing visions of what will work or won't work. But, its grounded in a common desire to see the country flourish.
The second is rooted in "what's in this for me?". It loves the fantasy that governments can provide you with lots of services and be 'efficient' enough that it won't cost you more in taxes. And, its relatively uninterested in policy issues that don't do anything directly for you. Shared concerns (say, Canada's lackluster productivity growth, the state of our military) tend to get the short end of the stick because doing something will costs $$$ with no direct, immediate benefit.
I think we've become mostly the second. We're unfortunately a seriously unserious country when it comes to public policy and increasingly our politicians and media reflect that. But, I have a hard time imagining politicians and media changing unless we collectively change. It's why I subscribed to The Line -- and maybe the Substack model might help foster a more serious, broader discussion. I'm skeptical, but we'll see.
Thinking for 2 minutes or applying basic common sense isn't asking too much of a journalist. But I agree that Canadians should demand that even if the journalist is "on our side".
"I didn't have time to design the bridge properly" doesn't work for engineers, btw - so not all professions are the same.
I do think a lot of Canadians also seem to have a hard time discerning between opinion, analysis and reporting. Reporting is costly, especially in-depth reporting, so we're seeing a lot less of it. And, local reporting is one of the first to go, which is really damaging for local governance -- where a LOT of the things we actually engage with happen. Reporting is the lifeblood of democracy -- its hard to make good judgements about policy without knowing what's actually going on.
But as reporting costs a lot -- and the media industry looks to fill pages and minutes with less cost -- we now have a LOT of opionion and analysis, in part because both are cheaper to produce. I don't have anything against that -- a lot of The Line is opinion and analysis, after all. But, a lot of the folks producing this content also are engaged with other parts of party politics. They're former government communications professionals. They write for specific think tanks. They lobby for interest groups. In part, it is those activities that make their opinion and analysis interesting, but the industry is not always entirely transparent about declaring those other connections which are very relevant to their work. Particuarly when those folks give quotes as part of reporting (as reporters seeks to find sound bites from various sides -- and these folks are *always* available).
I'd love to see more money go to reporting but the funding model is broken and we probably need a new one. I'd also love to see people writing opinion and analysis more clearly declare where they are coming from -- every single time they are quoted or have pieces appear in media. I think both would really help people regain trust for media.
For example: "Bob Smith, former Clark government communications director and currently an active lobbyist for the agricultural industry" is a lot more transparent that "Bob Smith, lead at Smith Consultants and an expert in the agricultural sector," Longer and clunkier, sure. But more transparent!
Tony, well said and I agree with most of what you said. The only bone I have to pick is when you say "A lot of political reporting in Canada is either "horse race" stories (who is going to win an election? Who is winning in the polls?) or "outrage stories" (who said an incredibly dumb thing they now need to walk back? What agency spent an amount of money unimaginable to most people?). " I only wish it was that objective. I think each of those situations you discuss are manipulated into existing narratives held either by the authour or her employer.
Genius comment. You nailed it.
That's what I recall too. Harper and McKay WANTED to proceed, but the Auditor General report (and the spin of the LPC of that report which was parroted dutifully by the MSM) turned it into a third rail for him. He was legitimately faced with the likelihood that proceeding with the F-35s would cost him the next election. Elections are decided by 1-2% margins. The LPC made this look like the F-35 was an irresponsible choice and the media didn't ONCE point out that the lifecycle costing was different than the acquisition price.
That was the AG report where we decided to calculate the full lifetime costs of anything having to do with the aircraft and rolled that into the already eye-watering price tag just to purchase them. "Twenty years from now you'll have to book some hotel rooms for some pilots, better make sure that cost is reflected in the report."
It was odd for the PBO to use the future complete lifecycle cost to discredit the F-35, but not to use the same methodology when costing other government initiatives. The federal government shouldn't hire any more employees because the future lifecycle cost of doing so is in the $4-5M range per civil servant.
Nailed it.
It would appear the F35 has about double the hourly operating cost of an F18. All planes are not created equal. It also has a completely different electrical system that is not compatible with our current equipment increasing the acquisition costs further.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/08/16/the-hourly-cost-of-operating-the-u-s-militarys-fighter-fleet-infographic/?sh=482f36e8685f
It is kind of like dragging your feet so long for updates on your computer that by the time you decided to come around and update you do not have the drivers or resources available on your system to sustain it. Had you updated periodically along the way, you would have investing piecemeal in upgrades no less and never would have had the problem. Part of our issue is this belief in Ottawa that we can just buy it and forget about it for 20-30 years. It has plagued our ships, our aircraft and our combat vehicles for long enough me thinks.
That was true in 2016, but the cost per flying hour has been trending down since then. It's still more expensive than it should be, though - probably more like 1.5x the cost of contemporary fighters, although there seems to be a plan to get it down to parity. Some of this is an expected part of fielding a new aircraft, as it takes time to understand how to optimize the maintenance. It's also an advantage of buying something used in large numbers, as you spread out the effort of figuring it out and share the lessons learned between operators.
That's interesting info. How does the F35 compare to current generation fighters though? Comparing it to decades old fighters is a little unfair.
Before they kicked Boeing out of the contest, the newer F18's were part of the process, based on the timing of the article, I'm assuming...I know..assumption...kill me now!!...that they're talking about the Super Hornet operating costs. The question still comes back to the unanswered "what do we expect to use them for"?
Reminds me of when Harper was debating purchasing the F35s and people were poo-pooing them because they didn't have twin engines like the F18s. First, engine technology has improved to the point that we do not need dual engines anymore, regardless of how many engine failures and forced landings there has been with the F18s over their lifetime, there will not be the same problem with the F35s. Also, dual engines are good for safety and redundancy but terrible for logistics and procurement. It means more equipment to service, more parts to source, etc. So the F35 has a huge leg up over the F18s in only have a single engine that is way more reliable than anything we used in aircraft up to this point. The comparisons are pretty weak.
The mishap rate for the F-35 has been very low so far, particularly when compared with previous-generation fighters at a similar point in their lifecycle. For all F-35s, it's something like 0.15 Class A mishaps per 100,000 h of flying time. A Class A mishap is an incident that costs more than $2 million to fix, usually meaning loss of the aircraft.
In terms of the effect of single vs. dual engine aircraft, we can also take a look at engine-related Class A mishap rates from USAF data. Let's compare the single-engine F-16 to the twin-engine F-15, and look at the mishap rates only for aircraft powered by the same P&W F100-220 engine. The F-15 engine-related mishap rate is 0.19, vs. 0.96 for the F-16. Clearly a second engine has a significant impact on whether you're going to lose an aircraft or not. However, the F-35 is going to have a lifetime of about 10,000 h. Let's assume that the failure rate is *comparable* to the F-15/F-16 data I've referenced with older engine technology: for the Canadian fleet, this is the difference between losing 2 aircraft due to engine problems over 30 years vs. 8 aircraft. Based on the Class A rate of the overall F-35 fleet to date, we're talking about the difference between losing 1-2 aircraft over 30 years and 0-1. In other words, all of those operating cost considerations are probably more relevant than the benefit of that 2nd engine.
If it's like the CF18's we'd better plan for a 20000 hour lifespan :) I recall airshows of the 80's and 90's when they demonstrated the 9G turn. Now it's down to 7.
My biggest fear for losing airplanes involves birds. I don't think the F35 has been pushed yet to full service pressures unlike the other 2. It's still evolving
Engine technology is vastly improved....but the bird you hit still destroys it. No different than what happened to the Snowbird in Kamloops.
Actually the Australia comparison is super apt. Canada and Australia have a lot in common socially, politically and economically. The Australians have done wonders to revamp and turn their military around because of threats existing around them. They are building a truly effective submarine fleet and lead even NATO countries (even though they are not part of NATO) in mine warfare capabilities. I think there is something we can actually learn from them.
Part of the stupidity was that the various cost numbers tossed around weren't even necessarily at odds with each other; they just reflected different ways of stating the cost. It was to the advantage of opposition critics to pick the number that looked worst, and the reporters rarely bothered to explain the difference to their audience. Then they'd start comparing something like the flyaway cost of one aircraft to the total life cycle cost of another aircraft, which was like comparing the purchase price of a car bought in 1982 to the cost of a 2010 model, only insisting that the 2010 price also had to consider the full cost of maintenance and gas over the lifetime of the car and ignoring the same factors for the 1982 car.
It fit the Liberal narrative at that time and so was amplified in the press. Regardless, it was gutless of the Conservatives to cave.
Or does Canada need a stealthy aircraft?
Yes, you need stealth in a modern fighter aircraft. First, modern surface-to-air missiles like the Russian "double-digit" SAMs used in Ukraine have been proven to dramatically reduce the survivability of conventional aircraft. That writing was on the wall back in the early '80s, which is why the US started developing stealth aircraft in the first place. Ironically, the Russians have discovered how lethal their own systems are when trying to use their non-stealthy aircraft against those systems when used by Ukraine.
Second, stealth is a critical advantage when you're facing other aircraft. Modern air to air missiles are far more deadly than the technology used even during the late Cold War. The first pilot to see their opponent and take a shot likely wins, and it's a lot harder to detect a stealth aircraft. As maneuverable as some modern aircraft are, they're still less maneuverable than the missiles aimed at them.
I think I brought it up in another thread here, but I kind of figure the US will be involved in anything we are. That means they will establish air superiority and will have done so much damage with their stealth fleet in the first 72 hours, that no one on the ground will dare turn their radars on.
If you think about it, if you took the pilot out of the F35 and flew it as a drone, it can turn at a much higher rate. Humans are holding the airframe back.
It all goes back to what we intend to use them for. A fun debate
Sure, but it's a question of materiality. If the discussion had been $150B over 50 years for the F-35 vs, say, $130 for the Gripen, that would be reasonable. But that's not how it went.
We've made our CF18's last 40 years, and they're 20 out of date...and lifespan. We shouldn't expect these to last 50 years. Same problem. Airframes will be long expired.
Excellent point Marc. Re PBO report, I recall that it used parametric analysis to estimate the full life cycle cost. This time of analysis is typically used to estimate things like the amount of concrete needed to build a 10 story building. It is a broad tool, and hardly applicable to this century fighter jets. The Auditor General report was just as bad, a swan song for the outgoing AG. And you are right, the media was served up a softball and hit it out of the park: far easier to precipitate a pointless political fight than to ask simple questions like: what the hell is parametric analysis. The f35 was always the the next gen fighter jet for Canada if capability and interoperability are the key selection criteria.
Oh, would this sensibility extend to our equally needed (and equally appalling procurement history) frigate replacement. Here is a suggestion: just buy 4 Arleigh Burkes (with sufficient C2 capability) and 15 extant frigates from the US (our most important military partner). Do not/not open the process to anything other than strictly limited and strictly monitored capability upspend by the military. Time to rip the band aid off. The shipbuilding strategy has not worked.
I recall being told by a Forces member after September 11, that the RCAF had a commitment of 45 aircraft for NORAD and 45 for NATO. The decision of the Chretien government was to make sure we had 45 total available, as "what are the odds we'll need both at the same time". Rick Mercer would and probably has had, a field day with this.
Welcome back (I know you co-wrote other stuff while you were on vacation.) What a country. We should have an award show on CBC (poetic justice) each year to recognize incompetence. “The award for most innovative screw-up goes to …” “This year’s worst federal Cabinet Minister is …”
You can add the helicopter fiasco to the list too. More Liberal screwing around both the forces and Canadian taxpayers.
Are the new helicopters even on the ships yet? I remember nothing but problems during the roll out including the span of the aircraft itself being too wide for our hangers.
Yes, the SeaThings were retired a few years back. The Cyclones have been operational on ship for a while, FREs tragedy notwithstanding.
The SeaThings were probably one of the best designed maritime aircrafts available to the world. I think that is what has made the replaced difficult as well. It is hard to replace the Cady, even if it is old, when all that is available is Jettas.
The Sea King was good in its day, but plenty of countries have found ways to replace it. The RN Merlin and Super Lynx are no Jetta, nor is the USN's Sea Hawk. It's not all that hard if you have the will to do it and I think that's Gurney's entire point when it comes to Canadian military procurement.
I do not think any of those aircraft will see the service life and combat time that the Sea Kings did over their lifetime. The Merlin and Super Lynx are great aircraft, no doubt but the Sea King was and still is something else. It is just very, very old now and made worse in Canada because of the fact we shut down assembly lines for parts. The Sea Hawk is good too but too large for our ships in Canada and perhaps a little more combat oriented. We used our Sea Kings for SAR and anti-submarine operations which wouldn't require a super large payload like say for Hellfire missiles.
They are actually Sea Kings, but "SeaThing" is such an awesome typo I almost wish we still had them, just to hear Trudeau say it. 😀😀
That was deliberate typo, they were affectionately called that by us.
I bow down before you. You, and all our service members, have won the palm of honour. Thank you for filling me in! 👍👍
So very true.
"When you write a lot about military procurement, as I certainly have, you can’t help but grow a bit (!) jaded and cynical. Even by the standards of my appallingly lowered expectations, though, this was an outrageous decision." Now try being the person who is actually using the equipment, getting into the plane, the ship the tank...it's scary.
Sadly, I am not sufficiently informed to make an intelligent comment on the substance of the argument, but I LOVE the writing: witty and wonderful. Thanks for a great read.
There are no excuses for the kind of journalism we have today. None. If they can not write facts, you don’t make them up to get people to read your work. Many older and famed journalists are deeply concerned where this garbage journalism is headed. It’s no wonder it’s on its way out. When Christia Freeland calls the publication and writer, saying she does not like the way the truth is written and wants it changed, then we do not call Canada a free and democratic country with a free press, and we certainly do not call that journalism. When the government allows Chinese newspapers in the press gallery but will not allow Canadian ones in because they call them out for the corruption, then this is no longer a free and democratic country, even the judge ruled on that, nor can you call it journalism. You may call it by any other name but it is not, nor will ever be journalism! Save yourself and do what The Line is doing. Do what Bari Weiss, Trish Wood, Matt Taibei, True North, Rupa Subramanya and real journalists do. It’s a craft and it is about truth. It’s holding those with power accountable for their actions, not aiding them in tyranny
She is and has been happy to oblige and as far as I have seen. She is willing to lick Trudeau’s shoes now, so she must have received a raise.
Right on. You nailed it.
If our WW2 and Korean war vets could see what we've become militarily, they would weep. What was all their sacrifice for? To see our country run by a prancing idiot? I've come to equate three words with one: "Liberal decision making" and "stupid". And partly for that reason I question the choice of the F35. I know the F35 is a marvelous airplane, but I feel the Saab Gripen would have been a much better fit for Canada's budget and needs. I see the F35 as an elegant sleek thoroughbred, chosen to compete in a steeplechase through rough bush country. In a dogfight with Russian fighters, it will happen over the Arctic, not conveniently near Edmonton or Montreal where paved runways and nice big hangers are available for maintenance.
As with all these things, it would be interesting to know who will spend more in Canada filling the order, as I see that as a significant issue.
That said, I think everyone agrees that this order is at least a decade late in coming.
One thing to consider in the "which aircraft" debate, is interoperability. Everywhere we go with the F35, other countries will be there and parts and spares should be widely available. If we get Gripens, we'd have to bring all our own stuff. Additionally, from speaking to people in the pilot community, one of the big bonuses of the F35 is that the aircraft "talk" to each other passing on threat and other information that is then presented to the pilot.
While I think the F35 is something of a Cadillac, and more than we need ( I believe whatever we're involved in, the US will establish air superiority very very quickly with their array of stealthy equipment), and we could have played a supporting role with Super Hornets with which our techs already have some familiarity. Alas, neither the Chief of Defence staff or the Minister of Defence have called to ask my opinion. I'll update if that happens :)
I think regardless of what we get, an increase in air tanker capacity is also required for Arctic sovereignty.
Good points David. I just saw though an article in the Nat Post today re ongoing F35 problems.
I assume it's this article. Wow.....1 minute of supersonic flight. Sounds similar to the B2 which has to be recoated after every flight for well over $100000. Lucky they don't dogfight at that speed....but Maverick won't get there in time ( in honour of Top Gun 2 about to come out)
A few years ago there was a rule in place that it couldn't fly within...I think it was 20....miles of a thunderstorm.
Isn't part of the problem with military procurement the obsession with delivering "industrial benefits" to swing ridings as opposed to fulfilling military requirements? Canada needs to accept the reality that it will never create competitive let alone competent aerospace or ship building industries, and focus on buying the best off the shelf solutions.
The bureaucracy seems intoxicated with the notion that they can extract industrial benefits that more than offset the cost of the aircraft. That was the crux of retired procurement official Alan Williams' widely-publicized criticism of a sole-source F-35 buy back in 2010. The thing is that the notion is complete nonsense. The manufacturers will certainly provide their customers with industrial offsets to complete the deal, but it's usually understood to be buying political cover. The offsets inevitably add cost to the purchase as the manufacturer has to incur additional cost to make them happen. Smithsonian Air & Space magazine had a great article about 20 years ago talking about the offsets accompanying a Finnish purchase of F-18s. One of the things I remember from the article was a McDonnell-Douglas manager searching for buyers for batches of Finnish painted wooden flowers that formed part of the offset!
Meanwhile, Canada's been paying into the F-35 development program since the late 1990s, giving Canadian companies the ability to bid on supply of F-35 components. They've done fairly well out of it already. One of the approaches of the F-35 was supposed to be that everybody buys into the program, and the program would try to control cost by simply buying the best component/subsystem from the best bidder without the usual politics messing things up. Canada's dithering on signing up for a buy was putting that at risk, though, as other partners were complaining about Canadian companies getting work when the government wasn't actually taking any aircraft.
Sad truth is that no one really cares. Will one person change their vote because of this fiasco?
So ... did anyone at the time the Liberal platform was released point out the gaff? ... or anytime afterwards, until you're now doing Matt?
This looks like Justin's possibly first "dumbass" mistake! But if it had been pointed out and publicized loudly, should that not have prevented them from breaking their collective necks all these years to hide the mistake?
Don't forget procurement of sidearms.
CAF are still using World War II vintage Brownings. The problem is that no replacements are available. Even spare parts are unavailable, so we must cannibalize to weapons we have left.
Government called for tenders back in 2010. Unfortunately, bids had to meet two conditions (1) Manufacturing had to take place in a Canadian factory (Colt, as I recall) (2) any trade secrets had to be made available to the Canadian company. As a result, there were no significant offers. (Putting industrial strategy ahead of military effectiveness is a common thread in Canadian military procurement.)
Fast forward. A contract was finally awarded to Beretta. However, the structure of the call for offers was appealed by another bidder, Sig Sauer, who won in court earlier this year. The court said that the procurement process was fatally flawed and had to be redone. So the Canadian Armed Forces still don't have replacement sidearms, and won't for another year or five.
All of which goes a long way to explain why Canada is not giving weapons to Ukraine. We don't have any that we are not ashamed of.
And how much did the Chretien Liberals pay to not buy helicopters back when?
Honest question here - and maybe I'm too biased on this one. The auditor general sort of killed Harper's deal by demanding a full lifecycle cost and making it look like the Feds had lied or vastly underestimated the cost of the jets. At the time, I saw that as having been the nail in the coffin of the F-35, and that up until then, Harper's government was moving forward.
While the Auditor General's report may not have been politically motivated, I felt that the hay made by the Libs on this file was very misleading. They gained very much by making it look like Harper was purposely hiding 20 billion or so in costs on the F-35 which made it impossible for him to proceed.
And that may be my bias, but that's had me blaming the LPC for Harper backing away from that deal. Am I off-base here?
Twenty years ago when my kids were little and I was reading the newspaper and watching the national news, all the while thinking I was a well-informed citizen keeping on top of important shit.
Well, dammit all. I had no clue. As did most other voters, apparently.
Yeah. These days I'm way more inclined to suspect editorial decisions at major news brokers. There is just too much pressure to feed viewers, listeners and readers the easiest, quickest, catchiest, risk-free stories.
Ick.