The politics of military procurement: the F-35 purchasing process in Canada and Australia Compared

Q1 Arts and Humanities
A. Howlett, A. Migone, Michael Howlett
{"title":"The politics of military procurement: the F-35 purchasing process in Canada and Australia Compared","authors":"A. Howlett, A. Migone, Michael Howlett","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2022.2137494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The willingness of defence departments to select the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for their fifth-generation multirole fighter has frequently been analyzed as stemming from the close historical connections allies such as Japan or Canada have with the United States. However, such an approach glosses over or ignores the operation of military procurement processes which are more idiosyncratic and subject to many pushes and pulls from different actors and directions. This article compares the experiences of Australia and Canada in procuring the JSF. Both countries are British Commonwealth members, with a long history of supporting western, and in particular, US alliances. But while Australia has secured its F-35 procurement and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has already received its F-35s, Canada has only recently overcome a lengthy F-35 procurement battle that remains mired in controversy and will not deliver to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) an aircraft for several years yet. This comparative case study between Australian and Canadian defence priorities offers a new explanation for this disparity of procurement success based on the need to both create and maintain alignment between government strategic defence policy and military service doctrine if major platform purchasing decisions are to survive.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"292 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Defence Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2022.2137494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The willingness of defence departments to select the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for their fifth-generation multirole fighter has frequently been analyzed as stemming from the close historical connections allies such as Japan or Canada have with the United States. However, such an approach glosses over or ignores the operation of military procurement processes which are more idiosyncratic and subject to many pushes and pulls from different actors and directions. This article compares the experiences of Australia and Canada in procuring the JSF. Both countries are British Commonwealth members, with a long history of supporting western, and in particular, US alliances. But while Australia has secured its F-35 procurement and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has already received its F-35s, Canada has only recently overcome a lengthy F-35 procurement battle that remains mired in controversy and will not deliver to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) an aircraft for several years yet. This comparative case study between Australian and Canadian defence priorities offers a new explanation for this disparity of procurement success based on the need to both create and maintain alignment between government strategic defence policy and military service doctrine if major platform purchasing decisions are to survive.
军购政治:F-35在加拿大和澳大利亚的采购过程比较
摘要国防部选择F-35联合攻击战斗机作为其第五代多用途战斗机的意愿经常被分析为源于日本或加拿大等盟国与美国的密切历史联系。然而,这种做法掩盖或忽视了军事采购流程的运作,而军事采购流程更为特殊,并受到不同行为者和方向的多次推动和拉动。本文比较了澳大利亚和加拿大在采购JSF方面的经验。这两个国家都是英联邦成员,长期以来一直支持西方联盟,尤其是美国联盟。但是,尽管澳大利亚已经获得了F-35的采购,澳大利亚皇家空军(RAAF)也已经收到了F-35,但加拿大直到最近才克服了一场旷日持久的F-35采购战,这场采购战仍深陷争议,几年内都不会向加拿大皇家空军(RCAF)交付飞机。澳大利亚和加拿大国防优先事项之间的比较案例研究为采购成功率的差异提供了新的解释,因为如果主要平台采购决策要生存下去,就需要在政府战略国防政策和兵役原则之间建立并保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Defence Studies
Defence Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信