MacKay, Conservatives should wear F-35 boondoggle

The auditor general's report Tuesday on the mismanagement by DND and the government of the F-35 is drawing major attention, and rightly so. But the fact is these revelations have largely been known for some time and all these objections raised previously -- the Conservatives simply elected to ignore them.

I've blogged at length on the F-35 issue in recent years, and raised many of the same concerns, so I won't repeat them at length here.

July 17, 2010: The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle
July 30, 2010: The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people
October 14, 2010: Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?
October 19, 2010: All of a sudden we all need the same jet?
January 19, 2011: Shocking fighter jet interoperability! With the Russians!
March 21, 2011: The inter-operable allied air coalition in Libya
March 16, 2012: This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

Basically, the Conservatives continually ignored the warning signs emerging from the U.S. and elsewhere about the viability of the F-35 program. Moreover, while this may end up being the right jet for us, by bypassing a needs assessment they went into this blindly, and by bypassing a competitive tender process they made it impossible for us to get the best possible deal.

The AG's report puts much responsibility at the feet of DND, and rightly so. They wanted the F-35, period, and they did their best to ensure that's what would happen. And the AG's role is to audit departments, not assign political blame. But the blame absolutely must be put at the feet of Defence Minister Peter MacKay and this Conservative government.

Of course bureaucrats are going to try to get their way, and of course the military is going to try to get shiny new toys. It's the job of the minister and the government to provide adult supervision, to weigh the priorities of DND against those of other departments, to put their wish list in the larger context, and balance likes with needs and what's necessary to get the job done. And it's not like this government is in the business of blindly following the advice of the bureaucracy: if that was the case, Munir Sheikh would still be running Statistics Canada.

No, DND and the Conservatives were willing partners here. DND wanted the coolest jet, and the government wanted to be seen as pro-military and take the opportunity to use it as a wedge by labelling any people that raised legitimate concerns anti-military. Which is ironic, with the "support the troops" government now hiding behind DND in the wake of the AG's report.

This whole boondoggle could have been avoided if the government had ever, for five minutes, just stopped demonizing critics and instead listened to and considered their criticisms. The government will act now with the AG tipping its hand. It already has (it received a draft copy some time ago) by signalling it may finally allow a more competitive process, and admitting that, prior to past statements, there's no firm contractual commitment to buy the F-35.

But years will be wasted beginning a process that should have begun years ago, and we'll keep flying CF-18s longer than we would be if the government had put the right process in place from the start. They've wasted time and money on a process they knew was flawed by putting politics ahead of policy, and they've mismanaged what will be the biggest procurement contract in Canadian history. That alone should cost Peter Mackay his job.

There was a time when it would have, but ministerial responsibility is dead in this country. Instead, ministers hide behind  bureaucrats and armed forces members to mask their own incompetence. The true north strong and free, indeed.

P.S. Just to counter one Conservative talking point before it comes to the comments: The previous Liberal government never committed to buying the F-35. It invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program to make development contracts available to the Canadian aerospace industry, and contracts were awarded to Canadian businesses far exceeding that investment. This was an industrial development program only. It developed a prototype, the F-35, based on American specifications and needs. The program included no commitment to purchase the plane that would be developed. The plan was always to develop a list of Canada's needs for a next-generation fighter jet and invite bids through a competitive tender process. It was the Conservatives that decided to forego a competitive tender and buy the F-35s without a full needs assessment or consideration of alternatives.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

After several years of ignoring opposition warnings about the price, suitability and lack of competitive tender around the F-35 program, the Harper Conservatives are now finally beginning to admit what we’ve all known all along: this purchase isn’t set in stone, the F-35 program has issues, and this may not be the jet for us. (The fact they're about to get slammed by the AG may be a factor.)

After several years of belligerent “you’re with us or you hate the troops” rhetoric and Red Menace propaganda from Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino anytime someone raised very valid questions, we’ve seen a massive climb-down for the government. Of course, they’ll never admit the critics were right all along, and this whole drama points to a serious lack of judgement by the government. Which I suppose is the point the Liberals try to make with this cheeky video.

Frankly, though, I think focusing on the flip-flop aspect is wrong, particularly when they’re finally (maybe) getting it right. Yes, they should have listened to us all along but, frankly, no one cares.

Where I would instead focus is using this as an opportunity to reset the process. Well, not so much reset it since there was no actual needs analysis and procurement process around the F-35 to begin with, so instead let’s argue for an actual process this time.

We need to have a public debate here, and it needs to start with the basic question of what role do we want our military, and fighter jets in particular, to play in Canada and the world in the 21st century. 


Just saying “we want the best of everything” is simplistic and foolish. You don’t buy the most expensive car with all the optional features, you buy the best vehicle you can afford that best fits what you’ll be primarily using it for: a car with good highway mileage if you have a long commute, or an SUV with storage space if you have kids to take to soccer practice.

We need to decide what role we want our Air Force to play going forward. Do we want to be focused solely on continental air defence and sovereignty? Or do we want the capability to intervene and attack ground targets in a conflict such as Libya?These are the kind of questions we need to answer first, as our needs will dictate the choices we make. If our primary concern is air defence, an air superiority fighter like the new F-15 Silent Eagle may be a better, and more affordable, option. If we want ground attack capability, a multi-role fighter like the F-35 or other options may be a better fit.


Once we've determined what our needs are in a next-generation fighter, we need to design a request for proposals and put it top tender through a competitive bidding process. Get the manufacturers competing to offer us the best deal and best price, and we can pick which is the best deal and best suits our needs. And then insist, as every other country does with major military procurement, that a significant portion of the work and related contracts go to Canadian industry.

All three of these elements -- needs analysis, competitive tender, industrial benefits -- were missing from the initial Conservative process around the F-35. If all options are indeed “on the table” as Fantino has said, then, rather than gotcha videos, we should be demanding these elements form the basis of a re-started procurement process.

Frankly, I think our primary mission needs to be continental air defence and we should consider an air superiority option that can performance that task better than the F-35, and at a fraction of the price. But let’s have that debate and evaluate all the options, instead of simply settling on the coolest-looking toy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The inter-operable allied air coalition in Libya

The Canadian Armed Forces are taking part in the UN-sponsored international coalition (the good kind) air mission to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and support the rebels under attack by Gaddafi. It's an important mission, and I wish them all good luck and a safe, speedy return home.

The Globe published a list of coalition air assets taking part in the mission, and it's quite the diverse list of many different aircraft types. Yet, somehow, they're all "interoperating" together efficiently...

The list includes:

U.S.: Navy EA-18G Growlers and Marine AV-8B Harriers.
France: Eight Rafale and four Mirage jets, six C-135 refuelling tankers, one AWACS surveillance plane.
U.K.: Tornado GR4 jets, VC-10, RAF E3D and Sentinel surveillance aircraft.
Canada: Six CF-18s.
Denmark: Six F-16s.
Italy: Four Tornados and four fighter jets (type unspecified, but possibly Eurofighters).
Spain: Four F-18s and a Boeing 707 refuelling plane.
Norway: Six F-16s.
Belgium: Eight Belgian F-16s.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Liberal contrast ads

The Liberals released two pointed and focused contrast ads this morning, returning the Conservative personal attacks with issue-based critiques. I'll told you should be seeing these ads on TV as we speak. More to come soon, I need to shower, shave and get off to work. For now, here are the ads.

And if you want to see these ads get more air time, click here and make a donation today.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Shocking fighter jet interoperability! With the Russians!

The Conservatives, egged on by the defence industry, keep telling us we need to ignore that looming deficit and pressing social needs (such as family home care and pension reform) and instead drop $16 billion we don't have on sole-sourced stealth fighters because:

a) We need to keep ourselves safe from 50 year old turboprop Russian bombers, and

b) Only by buying the same jets that fewer and fewer of our allies are buying can we "interoperate," which is totally important.

Meanwhile, in a land not far far away...

A first-of-its-kind hijacking exercise involving the U.S., Canadian and Russian militaries went so well that a similar drill is planned for 2011, an American officer said.

Jet fighters from Russia and the North American Aerospace Defence Command pursued a small passenger jet playing the role of a hijacked jetliner across the Pacific and back during the August exercise. The aim: To practice handing off responsibility for a hijacked jet between Russia and NORAD, a joint U.S.-Canadian command that for decades devoted its efforts to tracking Soviet forces.

Officers reviewed the exercise in November at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. The verdict: It "was pretty much carried on flawlessly," said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Lee Haefner, who was the lead planner.

NORAD and Russian officers will meet in Russia in February to begin planning a second exercise, Haefner said.

But how could this happen, you ask? (Happen again, actually) We're cooperating with the Rushkies? What about their ageing bombers and the red menace that Peter MacKay wants us to be scared of? Haven't they seen Red Dawn?

And we were able to hold this joint exercise with the American and the Russians, even though each country was operating different airplane types? But how could they interoperate, and what not? It's a miracle they didn't all fly into each other with those totally different types of airplanes they were flying. Didn't they know Stephen Harper says that's impossible!

Doesn't this example of a joint military exercise gaming exactly the sort of threat we expect our next-generation fighter interceptors to meet, and done cooperatively with our American allies flying different aircraft, and even with the Russians, pretty much negate the Conservative argument for why we need to drop $16 billion in this uncompetitive, un-tendered F-35 deal?

Only if you want to let facts enter into the debate, I suppose.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Startling fighter jet interoperability

Shocking news last week on the air defence front:

Two Canadian fighter jets intercepted an Emirates Air flight as part of an international response to a terrorist threat against the United States from cargo planes.

No, no, not that part. This part:

“Two CF-18s were in the air already, they were diverted and escorted a commercial civilian airliner through Canadian airspace,” said NORAD spokesman John Cornelio.

“Once they reached American airspace, the Canadians handed over to two U.S. F-15s and they escorted the airliner to JFK (International Airport in New York).”

But hang on a sec. CF-18s and F-15s? I'm pretty sure those are completely different aircraft.

Let's see. Here's an CF-18:

And here's an F-15:

Yep, look like different planes to me. But I'm confused. The Conservative government and their chorus of defence industry "experts" insist a key reason why we need to drop $16 billion on the F-35s without competition or tender is because it's the plane all our friends are buying, and if we don't have the same plane we won't be able to "inter-operate" or join in any reindeer games.

It's a wonder, then, that our CF-18s were able to inter-operate with USAF F-15s last week without flying into each other or anything, and were able to intercept and handle this middling threat to our national security despite not being the same kind of aircraft or having super-cool stealth capability.

It's miracuolus, even. But then again, I'm not a defence "expert."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thoughts on messaging, from Rob Ford to fighter jets

I've been doing some thinking lately on messaging. How you need to have a simple message for it to resonate. How the complex issues governments at every level have to deal with can’t be distilled into sound bites. How so many of us don’t have time for the details. And what that means for political discourse.

Two recent developments triggered these thoughts for me: the election of Rob Ford as Mayor of Toronto, and the evolving Liberal messaging on the F-35 and fighter jets.

Say what you will about Rob Ford – certainly, many have. Personally, I think he’s a lot smarter than he’s given credit for, although I disagree with him on just about everything. I can, though, admire his message discipline. He had a simple, clear, and compelling message – cut waste, end the gravy train – and he repeated it ad nauseum, never veering. It’s a message that resonates. After all, who favours waste?

Now, if you look past the soundbites to Ford’s platforms, there are serious issues. For example, the amount of spending he has in his sites is a fraction of the city budget. Big financial holes remain in his budget. The deeper, systemic issues facing the city go largely unaddressed.

We do need to address those deeper issues, but by and large the average voter doesn’t have the time or attention span for those debates. So a simple, compelling message, even if it’s hollow, still rings true.

Take the F-35 fighter jet purchase at the federal level. The government has shown no interest in having an honest debate on the issue. What is the military role we expect fighters to fill for the next 50 years, what are the threats, why is this the best jet? These questions go unanswered. Instead we get support the military rhetoric, and distortions and/or outright lies about the process and decisions taken by the previous government.

The Conservatives have opted to distill it to a simple message: this is the best jet, we support the troops, anything else will cost jobs. The first is unproven, the second debatable and the third untrue, but it’s a simple, clear message.

The Liberals initially tried for a more nuanced message: instead of an untendered F-35 purchase we should have an open, public competitive tender process to determine the best jet to meet our needs and ensure guarantees of work for Canadian business, and a debate over just what those needs should be. I think that’s the right policy, but it’s a 10 minute conversation that people just don’t have time for.

Now, instead, the Liberals have opted for a simple, clear message: we will cancel the F-35 purchase. Now that’s a simple, clear, understandable message. They’re setting it up as a black and white choice that everyone can understand, and that they believe will resonate: fighter jets and prisons or schools and health care.

Of course, it’s not really that simple. There’s actually no F-35 purchase to cancel, because no purchase contract has signed. And a Liberal government would still purchase fighters, and possibly even the F-35. They’d just do it through a competitive tender process. And the feds don't build schools anyways.

But again, by and large people don’t have time to have that wider discussion, particularly if the government has no intent in engaging in it. So it seems the Liberals have decided, rather than cede the field to the government, it’s better to meet their simple but flawed message with our simple but flawed message.

There are hardly unique examples. Our political discourse is increasingly dominated by simplistic arguments and messaging that aren’t afraid of ignoring the facts to send a message. Look at the Green Shift. The right policy, but it was sold poorly – you needed a 10-minute conversation to understand why. The arguments against it – it’s a permanent tax on everything – fell apart under scrutiny, but in the absence of time for that scrutiny a simple, compelling argument wins.

What we’re seeing is a dumbing-down of our political discourse by all involved. Rather than treat us like adults by having rational, reasoned, well-argued debates of issues on the merits, we get focus-grouped sound bites.

Frankly, I’m not sure I blame them too much. They’re only trying to get their message heard, and appeal to us on our own terms. You want to do the right thing, but you need to get elected before you can do it.

The responsibility lies with the voter, the citizen, to get engaged, to look beyond the sound bites and simple messaging by researching the issues and the positions. We’ll only get better if we demand it. But as long as we reward the simplistic, that’s what we get.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All of a sudden we all need the same jet?

There are so many ridiculous talking points coming from the Conservative government and from the defence analysts and pundits trying to justify the $16 billion F-35 fighter purchase, it's hard to know where to start when it comes to knocking them down.

I'd like to start with one of the oft-repeated ones though: all our NATO friends are buying F-35s, so it's vitally important that we buy the same jet as them so we can play together and be "inter-operable" because, if we have a different jet, we won't be able to work together and madness will ensue.

Really, since when? This strident necessity for everyone having the same jet and not being able to work together otherwise must have suddenly popped up recently, because it has never been the case in the past.

As an Air Force brat I lived on Canadian fighter base in Germany in the late 1980s, and the dizzying array of different NATO ally aircraft that would pass through was impressive. Canadian CF-18s. American F-15s, F-16s and F-111s. German F-4s and Tornados. British Tornados and Jaguars. And the odd French Mirage and Swedish Viggen on the non-NATO front.

All these many different fighter types (we're not even including Navy aircraft here) and yet, still, they all managed to work together and conduct regular successful joint exercises. Canada deployed CF-18s to the first Gulf War and to Bosnia, operating jointly with different allied aircraft.

Look at all the types of aircraft operated concurrently by just the United States Air Force over the years -- somehow, they managed to work with themselves and be all interoperable and what not.

Would there be some benefits from operating the same type as the Americans and the British? When it comes to joint deployments, sure. We could borrow spare parts and share munitions. But such joint deployments would be rare. The more important element of interoperability is around internal systems to let pilots cooperate on the battlefield, which IS independent of fighter type.

The fact is, interoperability has never been dependent on having the same fighter type. And, more importantly, it should be a lesser consideration to what should be the primary mission for our next-generation fighter: domestic interception and sovereignty patrol. With that mission in mind, there are a number of possible cheaper alternatives to the F-35 that we could consider. Alternatives, in fact, that will also be operated by some of our allies.

This whole "we need the same aircraft" argument really has nothing to do with interoperability. And interoperability wasn't the primary reason the F-35 consortium came together. The argument of putting everyone on the same type was really economic: the U.S. and British each want to replace several types with one multi-purpose craft. Operating one type saves on training and maintenance, and buy buying in bulk they can get a better deal.

There are other arguments to be made for the F-35, but the interoperability talking point is a weak one, and it's not worth paying a cost premium for.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?

Bringing the Avro Arrow into a debate on defense issues is like bringing Neville Chamberlain into a debate on appeasement (but without the Nazi reference). Both are too often used references in such debates.

I’m going to bring the Arrow into this F-35-related post however, but only tangentially. Back when production costs were soaring on the Arrow and the government was under pressure to cancel the program in the late 1950s, there was a group of expert opinion that maintained the era of the manned fighter-interceptor was over. That investing millions in jets was silly when they were already obsolete. And besides, the over the pole bomber threat would disappear with the development of the ICBM

The replacement, in their view? Long-range, often nuclear-tipped, surface-to-air missiles. In Canada’s case specifically, the Bomarc. The Eisenhower government pressured John Diefenbaker to scrap the Arrow and buy Bomarcs instead. And if we still needed some interim fighters, he’d be happy to sell us some US-made Voodoos.

In the end, we cancelled the Arrow and bought the Bomarcs, which had all kinds of performance issues and never lived up to their billing. (And, of course, the nuclear warheads for the Bomarc (and later for our fighter air craft) would be a political issue for many years to come.) We eventually scrapped them about 10 years later.

And, of course, we still bought fighter aircraft. Voodoos, Starfighters, Freedom Fighters, Hornets, and now, possibly, the Lightning. Some 50 years later, the fighter-interceptor isn’t any more obsolete in 2010 than it was supposed to be in 1959.

I bring this all up because I had a sense of déjà vu reading this article today about how, once again, the manned interceptor is about to be obsolete. This time instead of the Bomarc, it’s drones:

The government should cancel plans to spend $9 billion on a new fleet of F-35 fighter jets because they are not necessary, defence policy analyst Steven Staples says in a paper published Thursday.

Staples says the government should extend the life of its current fleet of newly refurbished CF-18 fighters by confining them to domestic surveillance and interception roles and consider replacing many of them in the long run with much cheaper pilotless drones.

This argument doesn’t make any more sense now than it did 50 years ago, and there is actually remarkable similarity in the arguments why relying on missiles was wrong then and why relying on drones is wrong now.

Drones do offer some improvements over missiles. You can’t call a missile back, but you can recall a drone. You can probe and identify with a drone; a missile is purely offensive. But the fact is there’s no substitute for having a highly trained pilot in the cockpit, making split-second decisions based on their in the spot observations. You just can’t replicate that over a drone video connection to a controller with a joystick thousands of miles away.

Drones definitely have their uses. Reconnaissance for sure, and even ground attack in high-risk areas. But I have a hard time picturing air-to-air combat with drones. And when it comes to intercepting, identifying and interrogating unknown threats on our borders, I’d feel more comfortable with a person on the spot, in the seat, evaluating the situation.

There is ample debate to be had on whether the F-35 is the right jet for our needs, or whether a more affordable alternative – the Superhornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Silent Eagle, or others – might be a better fit. That’s one reason we need to have an open competitive process.

But as far as I’m concerned, reports of the death of the manned fighter are as premature today as they were 50 years ago.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people

It's amusing to see the Conservatives attempt to spin the routine intercept of ageing Russian turbo-prop bombers by our young-by-comparison CF-18 jets as proof we need to drop $16 billion without tender or a needs analysis to buy F-35s. Because in fact, when you think about it, these intercepts prove a number of cheaper alternatives may do the job just fine.

The intercepts do show we need a fighter capability. That's not really in doubt though, at least not by anyone likely to be governing any time soon, so let's accept that as a given and move on.

First of all, the fact is these intercepts are routine, and have been ably met by our boys in blue with our current CF-18 force. If the Russians were flying circles around us, flying over Glace Bay with impunity while we were able to do nothing but shake our fists at them, maybe the Conservatives would have a point that we need super-expensive stealth fighters to stop them.

But no, the CF-18 did just fine, thanks. Now, we are going to have to replace them. They're approaching end-of-life in the medium term. The incidents the Conservatives trumpet though illustrate that, having met the threat with current-generation technology, any number of next-generation alternatives cheaper to the F-35 could easily meet this same threat: the revamped F/A-18 SuperHornet, for example (The US Navy is buying them). Or the Eurofighter Typhoon (being bought by the Royal Air Force). Or even the next generation of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, a plane purpose-built for this sort of air superiority mission. All would do this mission, and all would do it cheaper than the F-35.

Contrary to the Conservative talking-points, MacKay and company have actually underscored the Liberal position by creating this drama: the F-35 may well be over-qualified to meet our primary threats, we should do a proper competitive analysis to ensure we're finding the right plane to do the job, and we should put it to public tender to make sure we're getting it at the right price.

And by the by, something that hasn't gotten enough notice: the government hasn't signed a contract yet to buy the F-35s, and won't for a few years. Seems that dog and pony show a few weeks ago was just about getting MacKay's picture taken in a fake jet, and doing some PR for the Pentagon. Which means, the next government can put this thing to a proper tendering process without any penalties or problems.

P.S. I found this very amusing, in a death of my profession sort of way:

The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.

Yes, nukes! They might have had nukes! Build a bombshelter in the basement of your condo, Chad and Buffy! We have no information that they did have nukes, but we won't let that stop us from speculating baselessly, because that's what good journalism is all about.

Also, the Bear might have had a cargo of angry, rabid bears. Or cute, cuddly kittens. Or, NUKES! We. Just. Don't. Know.

Fox News North. We speculate, you decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle

I should start off by noting that I was an Air Force brat, growing up on Canadian Forces bases in Summerside, Trenton, Baden and Comox. I was also an Air Cadet. I think fighter jets are cool, and the F-35 is a particularly kick-ass jet. The Conservatives, however, are making a boondoggle of replacing the CF-18.

We do definitely need to replace the CF-18, that’s not in doubt for me. I have little time for the argument that we somehow don’t need fighters anymore. If we’re a sovereign country, we do need the tools to protect ourselves, it’s that simple. The question we need to ask ourselves though is, what are the missions we want our air force equipped to handle, and what are the tools they need to fulfill those missions? As I see it, the primary mission is domestic: to patrol and protect our borders, such as intercepting and identifying unknown aircraft approaching our borders, escorting passenger aircraft under suspected terrorist threat, and so on. Secondary would be potential overseas combat missions which, I would agree, are becoming less likely of a threat. With the CF-18 we flew combat missions in the first gulf war and in the former Yugoslavia but, tellingly, not Afghanistan. This raises the question, do we need a ground-attack capability or is air superiority our primary mission?

The key question is to identify the mission, and then determine the best jet to fulfill it. There is some question if the F-35 is a too pricy and over-equipped choice to meet the primary mission I identified above. One oft-heard objection is if we really do need stealth technology for sovereignty patrols. The two most-mentioned alternatives are the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon. I’d reject the Superhornet out of hand. It’s essentially a souped-up version of the F-18 that we already fly. It is a double-engine jet however, a key advantage over the single-engine F-35. Also double-engine is the Typhoon. I don’t really know much about it though. My concern with buying a European aircraft would be what industrial benefits would be available to Canadian industry.

What I’d like to see first is for the government to let us know what the mission is. What is the role that they see Canada’s Air Force playing in the 21^st century? If you really want to build support with the public for the largest procurement project in Canadian history, your argument needs to be more than “it’s the best because we say so, and if you disagree with us you don’t support the troops and are a commie.” Treat us like adults and make an actual argument for why we need these jets. Because I think we do, and the ham-fisted way you’re doing this isn’t helping.

The even larger mistake they’re making here though is to not have a competitive tendering process for this purchase. I mean, to not put a potential $16 billion contract to competitive tender is the height of stupidity. Hell, even when you buy a used car you negotiate a little with the dealer. You say you saw this great car at another dealer for a lower price. You pretend to walk away. You get them to come down off sticker, maybe throw in new seat cushions or something. You don’t just walk into the dealer, say I'm not looking at any other cars, this is the only car and I want, and offer to pay full sticker. It’s madness.

A competitive tender lets you identify and clarify your needs and evaluate the options. It forces the competing companies to actually compete and put together the best bid they can. Sole source it and there’s no competition at all.

And this is more than just buying X fighter jets. With a military procurement of this level, what will set one bid apart from another, and where the competition between bids really comes, is around the industrial benefits. Where biders usually compete the most is around what portion of the contract work will be done in the purchasing country, creating jobs and giving business to local businesses. These contracts can mean a lot of work for Canadian companies. Don’t put it to tender and we’ll see less spinoffs in Canada, less jobs for Canadians.

And then there’s the maintenance contract, which will be worth as much as $7 billion (that’s how we get from $9B for the jets to $16B overall). The government hasn’t even bothered to negotiate that yet. That’s right, they’re buying the jets from Lockheed but they’ll negotiate the contract with Lockheed later. And just what leverage will they have, given that they’re already agreed to buy the jets? Little to none. It will be uphill battle to maximize the Canadian content of that contract. And for those that don’t think fighter maintenance is important, go take a look at the role CF-18 maintenance contracts played in the creation of the Reform Party.

Now, the Conservatives say there has already been a competitive process with the F-35, and the Liberals initiated that process. They’re being deliberately obtuse. The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which saw Boeing and Lockheed-Martin develop prototype aircraft for the next-generation of fighter aircraft, primarily for the U.S. and the British. Canada was one of a number of investing partners, a decision that was made under the Liberals, and the process saw the Lockheed-Martin aircraft selected.

That, however, did not commit industrial investors such as Canada to purchase any aircraft. Canada’s investment in the program secured access to contracts for Canadian aerospace companies, and the industry has reaped many contracts from the investment. But there was no commitment to purchase, no evaluation of this aircraft versus other options as to which will best meet Canada’s defence needs, no comparison for value for dollar, and no competition to provide industrial benefits to Canadian companies in exchange for purchase. To say otherwise is to deliberately mislead, or worse.

I’ve listed a myriad of reasons why it makes good sense to put this contract to competitive tender. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why it needs to be sole-sourced. We have time left in the operational life of the CF-18 to do this thing right, so there seems little need to rush through a $16-billion process. Particularly with the economy and the budget in the state it’s in, if we’re going to do a deal of this magnitude (and I think we do need to) we should be ensuring we’re getting the right aircraft and that we’re delivering maximum benefit to the Canadian economy in terms of jobs and contracts.

Instead, the Conservatives seem determined to rush head-first with their eyes closed into a potential $16 billion boondoggle, at a time when the rest of the country is about to asked to tighten their belts as we enter a time of austerity. Doesn’t seem like a recipe for success.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers