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

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

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

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