MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4306878462 · doi:10.1080/14702436.2022.2137494

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

2022· article· en· W4306878462 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefence Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Établissements canadiensSimon Fraser UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProcurementBattlePurchasingPoliticsDoctrineGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceLawCommonwealthPublic administrationBusinessMarketingHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACTThe 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.KEYWORDS: Military procurementF-35 JSFstrategic studiesCanadaAustralia Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. The F-35A is the Conventional Take-off and Landing model, the F-35B is a STOVL (Short Take-off and Vertical Landing) version, and the F-35C is the carrier-based version.2. One RAF F-35B crashed during takeoff from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth in November 2021, reducing the number to 47.3. Meanwhile, however, Canada kept contributing its Tier-3 funding share to the program. There were various reasons for this: on the one hand, continued participation would allow the country to purchase F-35s at a discounted rate if this was ever chosen and – probably more relevant – the overall contribution was less than half the value of the contracts Canadian companies had received over time (Chapman Citation2019, 215).4. This was especially as the 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged strategic policy paper (Department of National Defence 2017) called for the acquisition of 88 CF-18s to replace its fleet of jet fighters and as the RCAF moved to acquire second-hand F-18 Super Hornets from Australia to bridge the RCAF's needs. However, those planes are themselves aging and prone to a variety of issues, not least of which has been the need to integrate new radars into older airframes.Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlexander HowlettDr. Howlett published the Development of British Naval Aviation, 1914–1918, in 2021 with Routledge. He has contributed articles and papers to international conferences in military and naval history and has been the editor of the Canadian War Studies Association since 2014. Twitter: @Suetonius_Andrea Riccardo MigoneAndrea Migone is Assistant Professor at Ryerson University. He has worked both in academia and with public services in the areas of public policy, procurement, and public administration since completing his PhD at Simon Fraser University in 2006. He has over 40 publications in the field of public policy and procurement in a variety of Canadian and international journals and chapters in academic presses.Andrea Migone is one of the initial members of the Canadian Public Policy Network and was one of the founding editors of the journal World Political Science Review. Twitter: @Andrea_MigoneMichael HowlettMichael Howlett, FRSC is Burnaby Mountain Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. He specializes in public policy analysis, political economy, public procurement, and resource and environmental policy. He has edited or co-edited three dozen books and has published over 300 refereed and reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Professor Howlett taught at Queen's University (1986–1988) and the University of Victoria (1988–1989) before coming to SFU. He was Visiting Professor (2009–2010) and Yong Pung How Chair Professor (2013–2017) at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, Visiting Professor at the Universita degli studi di Cagliari (2012), Visiting Research Fellow at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (2018) and Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Advanced Studies of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (2020). Twitter: @howlettm

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,481
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,700

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,077
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,199 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle