F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

[kEiThZ]

Substantially less? When we first deployed the CF-18 to CFB Baden-Soellingen there were 3 squadrons of 18 planes each. That's 54. Throw in the spares and whatever was being maintained, and that's pretty much what the difference is.

Says the guy who's never worked at an air ops desk. I'll let you Google how much of a force ratio you need to keep 54 birds on the tip of the spear.

 

[kEiThZ]

Canada hasn't committed to purchasing anything. Fatino reminded us all of that last week.

Harper isn't afraid to piss off the Americans. Look at the oil sands, where Harper's position is that if the US gives too much trouble, Canada will build new relations and sell oil to China et al. And, Canada will be following the lead of the Australians, Brits, and Spanish when it comes to reducing or canceling any perceived commitments for the F-35.

In the end I think we'll still get American aircraft, but more likely the Super Hornet. Mind you, like the Leo II tanks, we might just buy up other countries' F-18A Hornets, such as Finland or Spain (I can't recall which), which IIRC just re'furbed all theirs.

We ain't getting the Super Hornet. Not unless the government wants to spend billions more over the next 20-30 years. Public Works would have a fit when the risk assessment comes back from the air force and it risks supportability as high because so few countries fly the SH and the production line is about to shut down. Guess how many extra planes and spares we would have to buy because of that.

 

[kEiThZ]

Super Hornets would do just fine for us. Wouldn't the same amount of money for the F-35 give us 2 times more Super F-18?

Correction: almost 3 time

This is crap constantly put forward by Boeing. As much as I am weary of LockMart sending their salesmen all over Ottawa, let's be clear, Boeing is no less guilty. Boeing never does an Apples-to-Apples comparison with their sales pitch. The F35 comes with a fully integrated targetting suite. Boeing never tells you the price of a Super Hornet with a targetting pod. Fuel burn is substantially lower (this is not immaterial over the life of the aircraft), particularly so for a combat loaded aircraft. Boeing won't even toss in the extra fuel tanks to bring the combat radius on par, for free. Supportability is horrendous with so few countries flying it. Perversely, Boeing will then price support contracts higher specifically citing the fact that they have a smaller global fleet from which to recover costs. This is all stuff that Boeing won't admit to. But they'll gladly try and fool anybody into thinking their plane costs half what an F-25 costs. Not even close. Marginally cheaper on initial acquisition. Absolutely brutal over total lifecycle costs. Exactly why the NGFC office ruled them out in the beginning....even though there was a ton of internal support for the Super Hornet (Boeing thought they had this locked down).

Just remember. You don't buy airplanes like you buy a car. The air force has to buy a capability. Not just the air vehicle. This means the airframe, simulators to train aircrew, airfield infrastructure, ordinance, spares, etc. And that has to be supportable for 30-35 years. An interesting point of dispute with the AG. The RCAF does 20 and 30-35 year forecasts internally. We only release 20 year forecasts because that's all the aircraft OEMs will contract for. But we do our best to ensure that whatever we buy is relevant for 30-35 years. Essentially, we hope we can get 10-15 years more than what the OEMs usually support. The AG argued that DND should have used the 30 year costing. Almost all of the big numbers was based on the 30 year lifecycle. It's ridiculous. No country in the world uses 20 year forecasts alone, let alone 30 years. But DND does those forecasts anyway, simply because history has taught us that our buying cycle is 30 years. But to base decisions on an inappropriate lifecycle, that may be superceded by events? Moreover, it's a DND wide standard for all projects. Wasn't specific to the F-35. I'm curious to see if the AG comes out swinging as the Search and Rescue birds when that office does their costing exactly the same way.

None of this is to say, I'm a fan of the way of the Conservatives have pushed the project. The F-35 has many good points when properly explained can be understood and supported. I'm not a fan of silencing critics by suggesting that they are unpatriotic if they criticize a certain procurement. On the other side, the Oppositions is flat out lying about quite a few things too. It's unbelievable that they think that they could somehow get a cheaper price or the same level of industrial benefits as present out of a competition when this has not materialized in places like Japan or Israel. And both those countries are guaranteed to buy many more aircraft over the long run than Canada. Yet somehow the Opposition says Canada can shake out more? I'd prefer if they were just honest and simply stated that they don't care about capability. They just care about price. I would appreciated that kind of candour from the Opposition. Might not sell well in Quebec though...lots of JSF jobs there.

 

[kEiThZ]

Oops!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html

AoD

Non-story. I have yet to see a single procurement where every mandatory is met on the first go. This is why we often release the requirements to industry first to get their opinion on what is achieveable within our desired cost envelope. You get the feedback and then amend the SOR. If you take version 1 of any SOR (even if it's procuring paper clips), you'll find something that industry can't meet. That's why it's an iterative process. You can be sure the SOR has changed substantially from 2010.

What would be interesting is putting that SOR against the other potential bidders. If the critics have a fit over missing one requirement, I wonder why they are pushing the Super Hornet, which would literally fail close to half the SOR as it is written today. It would fail basics....like combat radius (much lower on the Super Hornet when loaded with ordinance). Incidentally, no aircraft out there right now meets the one mandatory they are talking about (360 degree look), though there is a system on the F-35 that comes close...and that tech is not available on any other platform, it's developmental and led by Northrop Grumman (for LM).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

See 4:30. The requirement refers to be able to see through the floor.

Can't be done on an aircraft like a Super Hornet because the SH puts all the sensors in a pod...which leads to a very restricted field of view based on sensor placement and which pylon the sensor pod is on. You can only achieve that kind of capability by distributing sensors. And unfortunately, Boeing is not willing to spend billions on engineering a distributed aperture system to provide 360 coverage....or if they do, the Super Hornet won't be cheap anymore.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The optics of the F-35 purchase would have been more palatable for the common citizen if the specs for the tender did not appear to be written specifically for the F-35, essentially calling for specifications and capabilities that only the F-35 can deliver.

Let's compare to the New Fighter Aircaft Program, which let to the CF-18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_program.

The writers of the RFP determined that the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18, F-16, Mirage F1, and Panavia Tornado were sufficiently spec'd as to be considered. They did not write the specifications to eliminate anything other than the F/A-18.

At the end of the day we all know the renewed competitive/bid process is a farce. We're getting the F-35, no question about it now.

 

[Tulse]

It's also not clear how those specs are even justified -- no public argument is made as to why those capabilities are necessary for the Canadian Forces.

 

[nfitz]

Says the guy who's never worked at an air ops desk. I'll let you Google how much of a force ratio you need to keep 54 birds on the tip of the spear.

I doubt that those 54 jets were ever meant to be operable at once. But if your such the expert, you tell me the ratio?

It may be less, but it's not substantially less, which is the word YOU used.

Not sure why we need to re-open this 2 months later ... given how much evidence has come out of gross incompetence by the Air Force and DND in this process, surely the debate is done. They need to start the process from scratch, and publicly determine what criteria (if any) we need to fill, and then issue an RFP for such a craft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

given how much evidence has come out of gross incompetence by the Air Force and DND in this process....[t]hey need to start the process from scratch, and publicly determine what criteria (if any) we need to fill, and then issue an RFP for such a craft.

I don't think all major procurement projects need to be under the public's scrutiny, I just want the RCAF to set the minimum requirements for the mission(s) they've been assigned by DND and then have DND and the government run a fair competition, or at least ensure best value for the minimum needed requirements. When we bought 120 Leopard II tanks from the Netherlands at a cost of $650 million there was no formal competition. But we spent wisely, buying surplus tanks at a deal. Not that surplus always goes well, see Victoria SSKs for example.

I think the recent RCN shipbuilding contract tender process was an excellent model of how to run procurement, showing the ideal mix of expert/insider input and government/opposition oversight. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-gets-thumbs-up-from-lobbyist/article2210042/ I imagine we wouldn't be discussing the F-35 at all had this procurement model been used for the CF-18 replacement program.

 

[kEiThZ]

I doubt that those 54 jets were ever meant to be operable at once. But if your such the expert, you tell me the ratio?

It may be less, but it's not substantially less, which is the word YOU used.

Not sure why we need to re-open this 2 months later ... given how much evidence has come out of gross incompetence by the Air Force and DND in this process, surely the debate is done. They need to start the process from scratch, and publicly determine what criteria (if any) we need to fill, and then issue an RFP for such a craft.

I won't give you exact numbers, since I don't work fighter ops.

But here's an example of a procurement sizing exercise:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/April 2008/0408IssBf.aspx

We follow a similar process with our own needs.

As for your assertion of "gross incompetence", let's face it, you're one of those folks who'd never support defence expenditure of any kind. I find it strange that media (and certain folks who are politically motivated) will take anything an urban planner says at face value but will never trust anything a military professional or DND analyst says. I'm curious where you drew the conclusion of "gross incompetence". Even the AG doesn't hold that opinion.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's also not clear how those specs are even justified -- no public argument is made as to why those capabilities are necessary for the Canadian Forces.

This all started under the Liberals. At the time, there was an internal view inside the Air Force that the government was going to sole source Super Hornets. DND's opposition to the Super Hornets stems from long term costs, fleet supportability, fuel burn, etc. Then the Liberals discovered the jobs potential of the JSF program. And we committed. And that's the appropriate. Yes, we never signed a contract to buy. But there is a very strong implicit understanding that the industrial benefits of the project rest on us committing to a certain buy. And it was understood at the time that partner nations would also get input into the design and evaluation requirements of the US JSF program so that a suitable aircraft was picked for all the partners.

The Next-Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) project office was actually started under the Liberals. That's why it's very peculiar to those of us in uniform that the Liberals are now campaigning so hard against what was essentially their own mandate.

As for not discussing it's requirements...the office has been open for more than a decade. The Chief of the Air Staff and the Chief of Defence Staff regularly report to Parliament. And requirements for major crown projects are always circulated throughout Ottawa. They are not internal to DND. And approval is required from every government department. Heck, Aboriginal Affairs gets a say. The idea that nobody knew about this project is absurd. It's just that it wasn't news until the Liberals found themselves on the Opposition benches playing second fiddle to an NDP official opposition that all but abhors all defence capital expenditure (I hate to be political, but I have yet to hear an NDP member tell me a single defence project they actually support funding).

Even the rationale has been discussed. DND has been consistently clear that it needs a 5th gen combat aircraft to carry out the defence tasks mandated in the last white paper and laid out in the Canada First Defence Strategy.

I don't think all major procurement projects need to be under the public's scrutiny, I just want the RCAF to set the minimum requirements for the mission(s) they've been assigned by DND and then have DND and the government run a fair competition, or at least ensure best value for the minimum needed requirements. When we bought 120 Leopard II tanks from the Netherlands at a cost of $650 million there was no formal competition. But we spent wisely, buying surplus tanks at a deal. Not that surplus always goes well, see Victoria SSKs for example.

I think the recent RCN shipbuilding contract tender process was an excellent model of how to run procurement, showing the ideal mix of expert/insider input and government/opposition oversight. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-gets-thumbs-up-from-lobbyist/article2210042/ I imagine we wouldn't be discussing the F-35 at all had this procurement model been used for the CF-18 replacement program.

Unfortunately, unless you go the developmental route, there is very limited choice in the aviation business. It just isn't like the Shipbuilding program (which was actually DND lead). I agree, that's a model that would work well in most circumstances. And believe me, the Air Force would love to use it. However, unlike decades gone by when there were multiple bidders with narrower capability gaps and price ranges, today there are only a handful of competitors. The performance gaps are huge. The price ranges are bigger. And often when you narrow down requirements, there's only one bidder that qualifies. This is actually a source of huge discussion, not just with the JSF, but across air procurement, all over NATO.

The point I keep hammering on...DND has to buy something for 30-35 years. That is what is driving the decision to buy the F-35. Drop that requirement to 25 years and probably the Eurofighter would qualify...but nobody is going to like the price tag or the industrial benefits. Drop that requirement to 15 years and the Rafale and Super Hornet would make it. But with both those aircraft, fleet supportability is a huge issue. And of course, after 15 years, we'll have to shell out for a replacement. Or this being Canada, we'll have governments that accept operational risk to aircrews for another 15 years (see Chretien Liberals with Sea Kings or deploying F-18s to Kosovo with unsecured radios).

In an ideal world, DND would have a Pentagon style budget and would be buying a fleet replacement every 15 years. And that would let us hold a competition. In the real world, we know we get one shot to buy a fighter fleet for the next 30-40 years. And when you look that far out, unfortunately, there's only one candidate that would be capable for that long.

 

[kEiThZ]

The optics of the F-35 purchase would have been more palatable for the common citizen if the specs for the tender did not appear to be written specifically for the F-35, essentially calling for specifications and capabilities that only the F-35 can deliver.

Let's compare to the New Fighter Aircaft Program, which let to the CF-18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_program.

The writers of the RFP determined that the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18, F-16, Mirage F1, and Panavia Tornado were sufficiently spec'd as to be considered. They did not write the specifications to eliminate anything other than the F/A-18.

At the end of the day we all know the renewed competitive/bid process is a farce. We're getting the F-35, no question about it now.

See my other post. Unlike that era, there's just not much choice.

If the government is willing to do a fleet replacement in 15 years or put it on paper that will not commit to foreign interventions in any high air threat environment or that they are willing to accept higher operational risk for air crews, the RCAF can drop its requirements. The Chretien Liberals did something similar in cancelling the EH-101 buy. They flat out directed the CF to accept additional operational risk of prolonging the Sea Kings' life while risking a developmental procurement . And they further directed the CF to accept operational risk on the anti-submarine role by procuring an aircraft with less endurance. However, neither the Chretien or Martin Liberals or the Harper Conservatives have been willing to put such guidance down on paper.

And then the Liberals went further and essentially committed us to the JSF program because they wanted the jobs (and they still won't explain how they'll preserve those jobs while dropping out of the JSF program). On this point, what is not widely understood, is that the industrial benefits to members of the JSF programs specifically requires the partners not to hold a competition. If the F-35 has to compete in a competition, all bets are off on industrial benefits and that country holding the contest will be treated as a customer of the consortium, not a partner. This could be potentially devastating to our aerospace industry. They don't want 3 years of assembly line work on Super Hornets. They want 30 years of high-value component/sub-component contracts.

So for DND, we're stuck with an unwritten commitment to buy, major pressure from the industrial base to commit, and successive governments that may complain about the cost but won't actually provide direction that would lead to a competition.

And the Opposition dances around it. Ironically, if DND caves and decides to hold a contest, now that everybody knows our budget the outcome will be easy to guess at. If we won't pay for the F-35, we won't pay for Eurofighters. That would leave the Rafale, the Super Hornet and the Gripen. The latter is too small to play. And the former would just not be as competitive as the Super Hornet. It's quite realistic in such a scenario that many of those firms simply would not bother bidding (particularly the F-35 and Eurofighter...if they suspect cost is the sole driver). When that happens, Boeing will take us to the cleaners. We'll end up paying only a hair less than the F-35 on acquisition and a ton more on maintenance (if you apply the AG's 30 year model to the SH, the price acutally comes out to as much or more than the F-35). A similar outcome has unfolded on the C-17 and the C-130 purchases. Boeing and Lockheed both knew they were going to the only aircraft qualifying on criteria and price. And they both knew that their respective aircraft were needed. Negotiations were not quite worth the word itself. It's an outcome the RCAF is weary of happening again. At least with JSF, DND has a powerful negotiator to help: the USAF.

 

[nfitz]

let's face it, you're one of those folks who'd never support defence expenditure of any kind.

What's the basis for that statement? I supported the CF-18 purchase. I supported both the original Leopard tank purchase and the recent purchase. I supported the frigate purchase. I supported the recent cargo aircraft purchases. I didn't support the sub purchase, and I'm not supporting the F-35 purchase.

How do you turn not supporting a flawed purchase into wouldn't support any defence expenditure? Is your case so poor that you need to blatantly lie?

 

[kEiThZ]

What's the basis for that statement? I supported the CF-18 purchase. I supported both the original Leopard tank purchase and the recent purchase. I supported the frigate purchase. I supported the recent cargo aircraft purchases. I didn't support the sub purchase, and I'm not supporting the F-35 purchase.

Too bad there wasn't UT back in the 70s and 80s to back you up. If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of those who complained that C-17 was too expensive? You can pull up your quotes to show me wrong.

Ultimately, though, you seem to me, like a person who simply opposes something reflexively, based on politics. If the Harper government supports it, it must be bad. If the Liberals oppose it, it must definitely be bad.

Let me ask you. Did you agree with Chretien cancelling the EH-101? Answer honestly now. Cause from where us uniform folk sit, this debate is strikingly similar to that one. Not only with the parties lined up on the same aisles, but also with the same accusations. There was all the talk about the technology not being developed or tested. No concern about the industrial base (Canada was to have an EH-101 assembly line). And lots of talk about it being a "Cadillac" solution. Same arguments all over again.

And it's interesting that you supported the Hornet buy. It was the single-engine F-16 that went up against the Hornet. The Air Force chose the more expensive Hornet largely because it had a better radar (it's mistakenly assumed that it was because of the second engine). So you're okay with the Air Force looking at technological requirements for 3 decades and then buying a more expensive aircraft to meet those requirements?

How do you turn not supporting a flawed purchase into wouldn't support any defence expenditure? Is your case so poor that you need to blatantly lie?

What's the point of debating this when you've already deemed it a "flawed purchase"? Exactly what Chretien did with the EH-101. And over 20 years later, we're still flying out of date Sea Kings, thanks to that decision. And they're due to be in service for another half decade. But hey, just like Chretien, you know more about military equipment and defence procurement than the engineers and air force officers who do procurement right? You must definitely know more than me, a uniformed aerospace engineer, in a project office, working down the hall from the fighter guys. I guess, I should yield to your great wisdom.

As for lying....where have I lied? I strive to provide very reasonable comments on the process inside DND on this stuff. It's an honest effort, in the hopes that some might understand a little more than the sensationalistic drivel that comes on the front page of your paper. If you're referrring to your viewpoints, like I said, show me your enthusiastic support for the C-17...and if I'm wrong, then I'll gladly apologize in advance.

ps. Did you bother reading the link I posted? Hopefully, you'll now have a better understanding of why you don't pull random numbers of airplanes to buy, out of your six.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ultimately, I will bring this debate back to my original points.

You can't have a competition unless you have competitors. If the government insists on the Air Force buying aircraft that last 30 years, the requirements that policy drives will result in only one compliant bidder. Simple as that. Unless somebody wants to start questioning the competency of the Air Staff in assessing strategic threat environments, this is not even debatable. So the question should be a simple one. Should the government be insisting on a 30 year lifecycle knowing that procurement costs will be high because of this requirement? Or would it be better to buy two fleets (15 years and then a replacement)? You get competition for the immediate replacement and 15 years to consider what comes after.

Not having competition because of tight requirements is not unusual at all. When the C-17 was purchased, Airbus proposed the A400M. It met every spec except one: a requirement to be flight testable during the evaluation process. It was literally a paper airplane at that point. That ruled it out. The C-17 won. And the purchase was expensive. Boeing knew the CF had no other choice. And there was no other airlifter to do the job of moving heavy loads to distant places, that could be bought and certified for our requirements (including Arctic and desert ops for example....Canada is very demanding) in the timeframe required. Lots of criticism back then too. Just like JSF. The Liberals opened the ACP-S (Airlift Capability Project - Strategic) Program Management Office and let it languish. Harper gets elected and puts the purchase through. Lots of crying and gnashing of teeth about paying $350 million per airplane (plus support costs). Opposition swearing up and down that the A400M was a good (and cheaper) alternative and that the Conservatives are going nuts on defence spending. Half a decade on, the Europeans are thinking of killing their own baby in the crib, because it has come way over budget and isn't close to meeting spec. Meanwhile, the C-17 has proved extremely useful. We're using even less rented airlift. And for the first time in our history, Canada has a sovereign ability to actually airlift to any part of Canada. That's proved useful in several domestic disaster relief operations.

And then there's the Sea King replacement saga. Chretien gets elected on a platform to kill the EH-101 because it's a "Cadillac". Who cares about things like requirements, the defence industrial base, etc.? The Air Force insists there's only one helicopter out there that does the job and will last for 30 years. The government insists that the Air Force widen its scope to allow developmental aircraft (guess Sikorsky lobbyists paid for lots of lobster in Ottawa in the 90s). The government insist it's willing to accept operational risk and strategic risk (inability to adequately defend Canada's maritime interests). Sikorsky wins. A decade later, turns out the air staff was right to be suspicious of Sikorsky's overly optimistic estimates. Oh and we're paying the same amount in total costs and getting fewer and less capable aircraft.

And there's another infamous episode on the Liberal side that never gets much attention: they compelled the Air Force to replace the Chinook with the Griffon (sole sourced to Bell Helicopter...announced from the PMO without any substantial DND input). A decade later, Canadian troops were begging for rides from the Dutch on ex-Canadian Chinooks because underpowered Griffons barely had the power to lift half an infantry section in the high density altitude of Afghanistan. And to remedy this, we bought half a dozen Chinooks from the yanks....for more than we sold our to the Dutch.

I can understand a healthy questioning of government bureaucrats. Particularly when it comes to big government expenditure. In fact I would suggest that the Parliamentary/Senate Committees on Defence don't hold enough hearings. What I can't understand is outright rejection of professional opinion. There are so many examples, time and time again, where the procurement staff have been proven right by history. Yet, governments never learn.

I have voted across the spectrum. I could care less about which party delivers the goods. Heck, as much as I criticize Chretien for his bungling on defence, I voted for the guy in his third term, because overall, the private citizen in me did like his overall platform. And I even vote Green, despite their vehement opposition to my profession. However, as a guy wearing a uniform and working in procurement, my desire is simply to see my colleagues who operate the gear, have the best kit possible for the taxpayer's dollar. Guys like me are often the first to criticize poorly written requirements or bad procurements. It's us, or our friends that get killed when bad kit goes into service. And when it comes to value for money, we strive hard to get the most out of every loonie. A better deal may mean more kit. That's motivation.

For most here, the debate will be academic. For me, it hits home when I get a Facebook post from a friend that he's going to be flying a Hornet over Libya over the next few weeks.

 

[nfitz]

Too bad there wasn't UT back in the 70s and 80s to back you up. If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of those who complained that C-17 was too expensive? You can pull up your quotes to show me wrong.

I don't recall ever commenting one way or another on the C-17. Obviously we need large freight aircraft. If we paid above the going market rate, maybe we paid too much. I don't have any idea how much we paid, nor do I recall ever thinking about it. I think you've got me confused with someone else.

Nice trick though ... insist I prove a negative. Instead I'll challenge you to find posts I've made against the recent purchases C-17's ... helicopters, or the tanks. I doubt you'll find any ... which makes it really bizarre that you'd state that I'm against any defense purchases.

Ultimately, though, you seem to me, like a person who simply opposes something reflexively, based on politics. If the Harper government supports it, it must be bad. If the Liberals oppose it, it must definitely be bad.

That is so absolutely prejudiced of you, it's shocking. Why the prejudice? What a black and white world you must live in. The conservatives support many things I support. They support taxation, as do I. They support gay marriage, as do I. They support the monarachy, as do I. The Liberals (in Ontario at least) oppose ending funding for education based on religion ... and I disagree with them.

Let me ask you. Did you agree with Chretien cancelling the EH-101? Answer honestly now.

No I didn't agree. It was stupid. As stupid as McGuinty cancelling that powerstation in Mississauga (or was it Oakville).

Cause from where us uniform folk sit, this debate is strikingly similar to that one.

I don't see how it's similar. There were contracts in place ... the F-35 contracts aren't in place - at least this is what the Conservatives tell us - though given how much they lie ... who knows.

Another reason it's not the same, is that with the F-35 production delays, we're years away from being able to receive any planes. There's plenty of time to tender it properly, and receive planes in the same timeframe - perhaps even sooner (and cheaper) if we select Super Hornets

And it's interesting that you supported the Hornet buy. It was the single-engine F-16 that went up against the Hornet. The Air Force chose the more expensive Hornet largely because it had a better radar (it's mistakenly assumed that it was because of the second engine). So you're okay with the Air Force looking at technological requirements for 3 decades and then buying a more expensive aircraft to meet those requirements?

Of course you look at technological requirements. And surely a key issue is that the F-16 only has a single-engine, compared to the twin-engine F18s. Wasn't that a key requirement in that purchase, after the F-104 Widowmakers? That's my recollection at least ... it's been a while.

As for lying....where have I lied?

You lied about me being against any defence purchase. Still waiting for the apology ...

The way forward is simple.

You spec what you need, and then you put it out to tender. Obviously one of the things you spec is a twin-engined craft, because in the past we've killed too many people with single-engined fighters. Perhaps if we were a nation that didn't have great expanses of land with nowhere to land, it would be different ...